1 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 26, 2014 Friday 8:07 PM GMT
Top 10 sustainability campaigns of 2014;
Pressuring Lego to part ways with Shell, putting a stop to the gendered marketing of toys and fighting for the survival of bees: these are the 10 campaigns that have taken 2014 by stormRead more end-of-year reflections and new year's predictions
BYLINE: Frances Buckingham
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 1569 words
Greenpeace: Lego's partnership with Shell
This Greenpeace campaign gets top marks for recognising the creative opportunities that iconic Lego brand offered for engaging the public. While the Everything is NOT Awesome video was the most viewed in Greenpeace's history, the images of Lego characters staging a series of protests outside Shell garages and international landmarks kept interest alive on social media. The online campaign was supported by a child-led protest outside Shell's HQ highlighting the emotional link between climate change and future generations.
Lego announced in October that it would not renew its 50-year partnership with Shell. Possibly one of the most high-profile campaigns of all time, not everyone was convinced by the approach, believing it too simplistic and failing to acknowledge how entrenched oil is in society (not least as a raw material for Lego bricks).
The Pacific Climate Warriors (350.org): Canoes v Coal
The David versus Goliath campaign of the year. In October, a group of climate warriors from 13 Pacific Islands travelled to Australia to raise awareness of the impact of the fossil fuel industry on their homes and livelihoods. With the campaign slogan "we are not drowning, we are fighting" they used traditional handmade canoes to paddle out into the harbour of the world's largest coal handling port to stop exports for a day. The Pacific Climate Warriors then joined Australians in peaceful occupations of fossil fuel companies.
The message that the islanders are no longer content to sit and wait as the "canary in the coal mine" for climate change was made very clear. The true measure of success will be if the islands are guaranteed a future.
Oxfam America: Behind the Brands
Oxfam is one of the few NGOs that seems able to balance the use of carrot and stick with major corporates, calling out bad performance while still celebrating the good.
Its Behind the Brands campaign encourages people to use its scorecard to tell the 'Big 10' food and beverage companies exactly what needs to change in their supply chains. In May, Oxfam started to highlight harmful food production practices that contribute to climate change. Kellogg and General Mills were identified as the worst offenders.
After only a few months of Oxfam applying the stick, both companies announced strengthened climate commitments. General Mills, previously ranked last on climate change policies, made some more ambitious commitments and was rewarded by a significant improvement in its climate score.
Let Toys Be Toys: ending gender labelling
Girls like pink, boys like blue. Girls like dolls, boys like superheroes. Retailers may think these old stereotypes hold true, but parents - their target consumers - don't. A parent-led campaign, which grew out of a discussion thread on parenting site Mumsnet, brought together mums and dads frustrated by the rise of gender-based promotion and marketing to children.
After 14 retailers in the UK agreed to stop gendered marketing, the campaign was then extended to books, asking publishers and retailers to allow children to choose freely what kinds of books and stories interest them. In November, Dorling Kindersley, Chad Valley and Miles Kelly Books all confirmed that they will not be publishing new titles labelled for boys and girls. Ladybird also pledged to stop labelling books in this way as it did not want "to be seen limiting children".
Avaaz: Peoples' Climate March
The growth in people-powered campaign movements has been one of the campaign success stories of the last decade. With more than 40 million members globally, it is relatively easy for organisations such as Avaaz to mobilise protestors. In September, hundreds of thousands of people marched in New York, London and across the world calling for 100% clean energy from policymakers and business.
A small number of progressive business leaders from IKEA, Unilever, Ben & Jerry's and NRG joined the myriad campaigning organisations. Patagonia closed its stores so that its employees could join the march alongside chief executive Rose Marcario.
Although it is difficult to assess the tangible impact of such protest events, the day was seen by many as a seminal moment in the climate change movement. It made the front page of many national newspapers, increasing pressure on politicians and decision-makers worldwide. President Obama acknowledged the occasion in his regular address: "Our citizens keep marching. We cannot pretend we do not hear them. We have to answer the call."
WWF UK: Save Virunga
Virunga, Africa's oldest national park, came under threat when the Congolese government awarded three concessions for oil exploration. Save Virunga is a global initiative that gives a voice to local communities who depend on the survival of the park for their livelihoods and recognises how important local actors are to the long-term survival of protected areas.
WWF-UK added its weight to the campaign in 2013, filing a complaint against oil company Soco under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Meanwhile 750,000 WWF supporters signed a petition, and in June 2014 Soco announced that it would end its operations in the park.
The cause has just been given a boost by the film Virunga, backed by actor Leonardo di Caprio, which is being broadcast on Netflix. The movie brings the focus back to the local communities, telling the tale of the park rangers and the risks that they are taking to protect one of the world's richest pockets of biodiversity that is home to some of the last mountain gorillas.
Platform London: Oil and Arts Sponsorship
With a focus on the oil sector, Platform uses education, exhibitions, art events and book projects to inspire change. One focus area is sponsorship of major art and cultural institutions.
In June, as part of the Art Not Oil coalition, a week of creative activism took place around the opening of the National Portrait Gallery's opening of the BP Portrait Award. In one protest, 25 performers had oil poured over their faces and created "portraits" throughout the gallery.
Platform also published Picture This - A Portrait of 25 Years of BP Sponsorship, which looked back at the chequered social and environmental history of BP and the role of art in society in relation to ethics and sponsorship. While no notable victory has been recorded, this campaign has started to stigmatise cultural and arts institutions funded by oil companies in a similar way to the highly successful fossil-fuel divestment campaign.
Friends of the Earth: The Bee Cause
Launched in 2012, this campaign scored a notable victory in the UK in 2014 when the UK government announced it was to launch a National Pollinator Strategy - a 10 year plan to help pollinating insects survive and thrive.
In the last few years, much attention has been paid to the plight of bees and their loss of habitat. Alongside traditional campaign tactics, Friends of the Earth also provided practical advice on the creation of bee-friendly spaces and asked supporters to pledge to provide food, water and nesting spaces for bees.
38 Degrees: Matalan #PayUp
On April 24 2012, a building housing five garment factories in Bangladesh collapsed killing 1,138 people and injuring more than 2,000. Many of the major brands whose products were manufactured at the Rana Plaza factory contributed to the official compensation fund for survivors and their families. Matalan was the only major British retailer not to donate - until 38 Degrees launched the #PayUp campaign that is.
Following pressure from members of 38 Degrees, Matalan announced it had paid into the official compensation fund, but would not disclose how much. In a hyper-transparent world this was seen by 38 Degrees as an incomplete response and its members took the campaign to the high streets and directly to Matalan's stores. Following this action the company finally divulged the amount and, while £60,000 was seen as a win by 38 Degrees, the organisation is keeping up the pressure on Matalan to donate more.
350.org: Fossil Fuel Divestment
The fastest growing divestment campaign ever, the movement had a turning point in the US this year when it was announced that the Rockefellers Brothers Fund would withdraw its investments from fossil fuels investments.
The campaign first took hold in the US with Bill McKibben's Do the Math speaking tour. The activist took to the road by bus and at each venue in the US was joined by artists, actors and musicians, all working together to empower the audience to act through a mix of music, interactive, video and discussions. The campaign is now seeing success in Europe, with the University of Glasgow the first academic institution to announce it will divest. This was followed by the Diocese of Oxford becoming the first religious institution to follow suit.
Frances Buckingham is an associate at SustainAbility and editor of Radar.
What campaigns have inspired you this year? Tweet us @GuardianSustBiz with #GSB2014 to let us know! To get in touch with ideas for coverage in 2015, email tess.riley@theguardian.com
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox.
LOAD-DATE: December 26, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
2 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 24, 2014 Wednesday 12:13 PM GMT
Wall brown butterfly 'may be a victim of climate change';
Evidence suggests butterfly is dying out because warmer weather is causing generations to hatch out too late in the year to survive, scientists say
BYLINE: Patrick Barkham
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 714 words
The dramatic decline of one of Britain's butterflies may be because climate change is creating a "lost generation" according to research by Belgian scientists.
The disappearance of the wall brown ( Lasiommata megera) from swathes of southern England has mystified conservationists for two decades but new evidence suggests that the butterfly is dying out because warmer weather is causing generations to hatch out too late in the year to survive.
In recent years, instead of the offspring of the wall butterflies found flying in July and August spending winter as a caterpillar before emerging as a butterfly the following year, warm conditions encourage the caterpillars to quickly turn into a butterfly by September and October.
By emerging so late in the year, these butterflies fall into what researchers, led by Professor Hans Van Dyck of Louvain University, call a "developmental trap". By autumn, it is too cold and there are not suitable plants for their offspring to eat before winter. In effect, these autumn butterflies are a lost generation, leaving no caterpillars that can survive to become butterflies the following spring.
Similarly doomed generations of other species have also been found flying in the autumn in recent years, including the white admiral, Duke of Burgundy and orange tip, which traditionally only fly in spring or summer.
In Britain, the wall has decreased by 86% since 1976 - vanishing from much of central and southern England - but it has survived at coastal sites.
In research published in the international journal Oikos, enclosed pots of captive-bred wall caterpillars were placed at coastal and inland sites in Belgium of similar latitude during the summer. All the caterpillars placed at inland sites quickly developed to become a third generation of wall butterflies which emerged in the autumn. At coastal sites, however, just 42.5% developed into a third generation, with the majority following the species' traditional life-cycle - spending winter as a caterpillar before emerging as a butterfly the following year.
The scientists found that the micro-climate at the inland sites was on average 1.2C warmer than at coastal sites, suggesting that cooler conditions by the sea enabled the butterfly to maintain its traditional life-cycle.
While climate change should benefit many sun-loving butterfly species, the fate of the wall could be shared by many other insects struggling to adapt their lifestyles quickly enough to rapid changes in temperature.
The white admiral is another butterfly once only spotted in July which is now producing a small extra generation which flies in September, when scientists doubt it can produce offspring capable of surviving the winter.
"This year there were a lot of unusual sightings of moths in the autumn - late spring species suddenly being seen again," said Richard Fox of Butterfly Conservation. "It probably is an effect that will be seen across species that use temperature and other environmental cues that relate to temperature as part of the decision-making process driving their development."
Fox said he hoped that natural selection would ensure that the genotypes of wall browns that try to squeeze an extra generation into the year are selected out of existence "but whether the butterfly can adapt and not fall into this trap is a big question - some species adapt and thrive but lots of species become extinct."
Other butterfly species have surprised scientists by the speed in which they have adapted to changing conditions.
In North America, a subspecies of the quino checkerspot butterfly defied expectations it would become extinct by moving to higher altitudes and choosing a new plant on which to feed.
In Britain, brown argus caterpillars switched to a new food plant in warmer conditions, enabling the butterfly to rapidly expand its range northwards.
The Belgian scientists stressed that their findings are not the "smoking gun" and further research is required. Fox warned that there may be other factors apart from climate change causing the wall's decline. Another theory is that increased nitrogen pollution is changing vegetation and stopping its caterpillars from feeding successfully.
"It's a very elegant theory but there may be more to it," said Fox. "There often is with butterflies."
LOAD-DATE: December 24, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
3 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 24, 2014 Wednesday 11:03 AM GMT
Bitter winters for Peru's alpaca farmers combating climate change;
Stud alpacas and mini-reservoirs to irrigate new crops are helping farmers on Peru's Altiplano to protect their herds in the face of fluctuating weather
BYLINE: Sam Jones in Ayaviri
SECTION: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT
LENGTH: 742 words
Until last year, the greatest disruption to the lives of the alpaca farmers of Melgar in recent times had been the arrival of the Shining Path guerrillas in the province almost three decades ago to spread their Maoist doctrine, destroy communication masts and kill those they deemed enemies of the revolution.
The winter of 2013, however, brought its own particular problems. Heavy rains soaked the Altiplano, leaving the animals on which thousands of families depend sick and weak. Some female alpacas began to miscarry their crias, while many of the animals that survived eventually succumbed to infections and the cold.
As the snow came, Susana Mamani watched more and more of her herd sicken and die. "Last year, it rained a lot and my young animals got sick with toxaemia," says the 33-year-old farmer. "It was colder than normal and it snowed early. I lost around a third of my 50 alpacas." Despite her prayers, she was left to look on helplessly as many froze to death on the hillsides.
Existence in this corner of south-east Peru - where the odd mobile phone, fence or corrugated iron roof on an adobe hut are among the few concessions to modern life - has never been easy. The farmers who tend their animals in a landscape that sits 4,500 metres (14,760 feet) above sea level are, by nature and necessity, stoical.
But the weather of recent years worries them. The people of Melgar did not need the presence of delegates from 190 countries in the Peruvian capital, Lima, to discuss climate change to confirm its effects; they have only to look at themselves, the land and their animals. "When it is cold, it is colder than before," says Mamani. "When it is dry, we have more sun. The weather has been changing."
Susana Chape, a 53-year-old farmer who supports her three sons and four daughters with the 2,000 soles [$680] she earns each year from her alpacas, cows and sheep, offers a similar observation. "Over the past two or three years, we've seen a change in the weather, with the summers getting hotter and the winters getting colder," she says in a mixture of Spanish and Quechua. "There's more rain now and more snow, and it makes me sad to see my animals die."
Faced with a climate that increasingly threatens their livelihoods, the farmers have been working with Soluciones Prácticas (the Latin American branch of the British NGO Practical Action ) to protect their animals. Over the past three years, the charity has built 61 spring-fed mini-reservoirs to help the farmers irrigate new crops, such as oats and clover, which have improved the alpacas' diets by providing year-round fodder. In previous years, the sun had scorched the grasses that grow on the hillsides, leaving them too yellow and dry for even the hungriest alpacas to eat.
Soluciones Prácticas has also introduced stud alpacas to help swell the depleted herds and to enhance the quality of the animals' wool. The $700,000 project has enabled the farmers to sell about 160 tonnes over the same period, with the finest wool grade now fetching up to 44,000 soles ($15,000) a tonne.
While the changes cannot completely safeguard either animals or incomes from climatic variations, they have afforded the farmers of Melgar a little more control over their economic fates.
"My ancestors had to work harder because they didn't have the genetic science we have," says Elio Chila Ccahubna, whose 70 alpacas bring him 2,000-3,000 soles a year. "Now we can choose the characteristics we want to get the most beautiful animals with the finest wool." As a bonus, he adds, the alpacas are finding the oats that make up much of their winter rations delicious.
Increased prices are also allowing the people of Melgar to plan. One of Chape's sons is studying to be a teacher; she hopes her other children will also have the chance to choose their own careers. "If they want to work with alpacas, that's great," she says. "But I want them to have the choice."
Mamani, whose bowler hat and thick cardigan shield her from both the punishing Andean sun and the cold that comes when it sets, has ideas of her own. Her nine-year-old daughter lives an hour away by car so she can go to school. "I am confident that my daughter will get a good education because I will be able to pay for it," Mamani says. Unlike Chape, she has no desire to see her daughter spend her life herding alpacas on the freezing, burning hills of Melgar. "I don't want her to do this work. I want her to become a professional."
LOAD-DATE: December 24, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
4 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 24, 2014 Wednesday 12:27 AM GMT
Australia records biggest emissions drop in a decade as carbon tax kicks in;
Greens and conservation group say significant drop in annual emissions shows the carbon price, which was scrapped by the Abbott government, was effective
BYLINE: Oliver Milman
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 740 words
Australia's greenhouse gas emissions dropped 1.4% in the second full year of the carbon price - the largest recorded annual decrease in the past decade.
Data released by the Department of the Environment (pdf) showed that emissions in the June quarter rose 0.4%. However, annual emissions to June 2014 dropped 1.4%.
This period includes the second 12 months of the carbon pricing system, which was introduced by the previous federal government in 2012. The Coalition fulfilled an election pledge by abolishing carbon pricing in July.
Emissions reduction accelerated during the two-year span of carbon pricing, with emissions edging down by 0.8% in the first 12 months of the system.
The latest greenhouse gas inventory showed emissions from the electricity sector, the industry most affected by carbon pricing, fell 4% in the year to June.
Electricity emissions account for a third of Australia's emissions output, which stood at 542.6m tonnes in the year to June, down from 550.2m tonnes in the previous 12 months.
Emissions from transport dropped 0.4% in the year to June, with gases released by the agriculture industry decreasing by 2.6%. Industrial processes emitted 1.3% less greenhouse gas during the year, although fugitive emissions, such as those from mining, rose 5.1%.
Electricity emissions peaked in 2008 and have steadily decreased ever since, driven by a number of factors such as the winding down of parts of Australia's manufacturing base and energy efficiency initiatives.
The Greens leader, Christine Milne, said: "These figures demonstrate to the rest of the world just how effective our carbon price was at bringing down pollution. This is the biggest ever drop recorded and the price made it happen.
"The Abbott government will go down in history as taking the biggest backward step in tackling global warming Australia has ever seen. As well as being terrible for the climate, it is a tragedy for Australia in terms of lost investment and jobs in the clean industries of the future."
Victoria McKenzie-McHarg, the climate change program manager at the Australian Conservation Foundation, said the figures demonstrated the carbon price was effective.
"We've never seen a decrease like this. Yes, there was a lot else happening in this time, but it is an indication that the policy was working," she said.
"The price did better than expected. Also, we would have seen deeper cuts in emissions over time as the price created a long-term economic signal and changed investment in energy. We never expected to see the biggest reductions straight away."
The Coalition's emissions reduction fund, a $2.55bn initiative that will provide voluntary grants to businesses that want to reduce their emissions, will begin distributing cash via reverse auctions in the first quarter of next year.
The government's Climate Change Authority said this week it was "unlikely" the new policy would meet Australia's minimum goal of a 5% reduction in emissions by 2020, on 2000 levels. The analysis followed similar pessimism raised by the UN and independent bodies about the new regime.
McKenzie-McHarg said: "It is difficult to see how it will deliver the required cuts. It takes money from taxpayers and gives it to polluters. This reverses the longstanding principle of polluter pays, which sets a dangerous and expensive precedent."
The Coalition has maintained that the carbon price delivered minimal emissions cuts at a large cost to the economy and household electricity bills. The government estimates the repeal of the system saves the average household about $550 a year.
The environment minister, Greg Hunt, said Australia's emissions trajectory was going down, making him confident the 5% cut goal would be met through bids for carbon abatement money.
"I am not just confident, I am exceptionally confident that we'll achieve our targets," he told Sky News. "And a couple of very significant things have occurred.
"We see that there is a lower trajectory than expected. I also note that the pipeline of likely bids is far higher than we had anticipated or expected. Material that wasn't before the Climate Change Authority. And so we are in better shape than I had ever hoped at this stage. And I'm very pleased."
The next set of quarterly emissions figures will be released in February. Interim data, released by consultancy firm Pitt&Sherry, has shown Australia's emissions have increased since the repeal of the carbon price.
LOAD-DATE: December 24, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
5 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 24, 2014 Wednesday
Late Edition - Final
Restored Forests Are Making Inroads Against Climate Change
BYLINE: By JUSTIN GILLIS
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; THE BIG FIX; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 2513 words
LA VIRGEN, Costa Rica -- Over just a few decades in the mid-20th century, this small country chopped down a majority of its ancient forests. But after a huge conservation push and a wave of forest regrowth, trees now blanket more than half of Costa Rica.
Far to the south, the Amazon forest was once being quickly cleared to make way for farming, but Brazil has slowed the loss so much that it has done more than any other country to limit the emissions leading to global warming.
And on the other side of the world, in Indonesia, bold new promises have been made in the past few months to halt the rampant cutting of that country's forests, backed by business interests with the clout to make it happen.
In the battle to limit the risks of climate change, it has been clear for decades that focusing on the world's immense tropical forests -- saving the ones that are left, and perhaps letting new ones grow -- is the single most promising near-term strategy.
That is because of the large role that forests play in what is called the carbon cycle of the planet. Trees pull the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, out of the air and lock the carbon away in their wood and in the soil beneath them. Destroying them, typically by burning, pumps much of the carbon back into the air, contributing to climate change.
Over time, humans have cut down or damaged at least three-quarters of the world's forests, and that destruction has accounted for much of the excess carbon that is warming the planet.
But now, driven by a growing environmental movement in countries that are home to tropical forests, and by mounting pressure from Western consumers who care about sustainable practices, corporate and government leaders are making a fresh push to slow the cutting -- and eventually to halt it. In addition, plans are being made by some of those same leaders to encourage forest regrowth on such a giant scale that it might actually pull a sizable fraction of human-released carbon dioxide out of the air and lock it into long-term storage.
With the recent signs of progress, long-wary environmental groups are permitting themselves a burst of optimism about the world's forests.
''The public should take heart,'' said Rolf Skar, who helps lead forest conservation work for the environmental group Greenpeace. ''We are at a potentially historic moment where the world is starting to wake up to this issue, and to apply real solutions.''
Still, Greenpeace and other groups expect years of hard work as they try to hold business leaders and politicians accountable for the torrent of promises they have made lately. The momentum to slow or halt deforestation is fragile, for many reasons. And even though rich Western governments have hinted for years that they might be willing to spend tens of billions of dollars to help poor countries save their forests, they have allocated only a few billion dollars.
Around the world, trees are often cut down to make room for farming, and so the single biggest threat to forests remains the need to feed growing populations, particularly an expanding global middle class with the means to eat better. Saving forests, if it can be done, will require producing food much more intensively, on less land.
''For thousands of years, the march of civilization has been associated with converting natural ecosystems to crops that serve only man,'' said Glenn Hurowitz, a managing director at Climate Advisers, a consultancy in Washington.
''What's happening now is that we are trying to break that paradigm. If that succeeds, it's going to be a major development in human history.''
A Remarkable Comeback
Deep inside a Costa Rican rain forest, white-faced capuchin monkeys leapt through the tree tops. Nunbirds and toucans flew overhead, and a huge butterfly, flashing wings of an iridescent blue, fluttered through the air.
Ignoring the profusion of life around him, Bernal Paniagua Guerrero focused his gaze on a single 20-foot tree, placing a tape measure around the spindly trunk and calling a number out to his sister, Jeanette Paniagua Guerrero, who recorded it on a clipboard.
With that, the tree, a black manú just over two inches in diameter, entered the database of the world's scientific knowledge. Its growth will be tracked year by year until it dies a natural death -- or somebody decides to chop it down for the valuable, rot-resistant wood.
The Paniaguas and their co-worker, Enrique Salicette Nelson, work for an American scientist, Robin Chazdon, helping her chronicle a remarkable comeback.
Cuatro Rios, the forest they were standing in one recent day, looked, to a casual eye, as if it must have been there forever. Trees stretched as high as 100 feet, and a closed canopy of leaves cast the understory into deep shade -- one hallmark of a healthy tropical rain forest.
In fact, the land was a cattle pasture only 45 years ago. When the market for beef fell, the owners let the forest reclaim it. Now the Cuatro Rios forest, near the tiny village of La Virgen, is a study plot for Dr. Chazdon, an ecologist from the University of Connecticut, who has become a leading voice in arguing that large-scale forest regrowth can help to solve some of the world's problems.
Indeed, forests are already playing an outsize role in limiting the damage humans are doing to the planet.
For the entire geologic history of the earth, carbon in various forms has flowed between the ground, the air and the ocean. A large body of scientific evidence shows that the amount of carbon in the air at any given time, in the form of carbon dioxide, largely determines the planet's temperature.
The burning of coal, oil and natural gas effectively moves carbon out of the ground and into the active carbon cycle operating at the earth's surface, causing a warming of the globe that scientists believe is more rapid now than in any similar period of geologic history.
Though the higher temperatures are causing extensive problems, including heat waves and rising seas, the increasing carbon dioxide also acts as a sort of plant fertilizer. The gas is the primary source of the carbon that plants, using the energy of sunlight, turn into sugars and woody tissue.
Scientific reports suggest that 20 percent to 25 percent of the carbon dioxide that people are pumping into the air is being absorbed by trees and other plants, which keep taking up more and more even as human emissions keep rising.
But when people damage or destroy forests, that puts carbon dioxide into the air, worsening the warming problem. Historically, forests have been chopped down all over the planet. Now they are actually regrowing across large stretches of the Northern Hemisphere, and the most worrisome destruction is occurring in relatively poor countries in the tropics.
Scientists concluded decades ago that deforestation must be stopped, both to limit climate change and to conserve the world's biological diversity. These days, they are also coming to understand the huge potential of new or recovering forests to help pull dangerous emissions out of the air.
''Every time I hear about a government program that is going to spend billions of dollars on some carbon capture and storage program, I just laugh and think, what is wrong with a tree?'' said Nigel Sizer, director of forest programs at the World Resources Institute, a think tank in Washington. ''All you have to do is look out the window, and the answer is there.''
Scientists are still trying to figure out how much of a difference an ambitious forest regrowth strategy could make. But a leading figure in the discussion -- Richard A. Houghton, acting president of the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts -- has argued for turning some 1.2 billion acres of degraded or marginally productive agricultural land into forests.
That is an exceedingly ambitious figure, equal to about half the land in the United States. But researchers say it would be possible, in principle, if farming in poor countries became far more efficient. Some countries have already pledged to restore tens of millions of acres.
Dr. Houghton believes that if his target were pursued aggressively, and coupled with stronger efforts to protect existing forests, the rapid growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could be slowed sharply or possibly even halted.
That, he believes, would give the world a few decades for an orderly transition away from fossil fuels. ''This is not a solution, but it would help us buy some time,'' Dr. Houghton said.
Finding an Effective Tactic
The Amazon, spreading across nine countries of South America, is the world's largest tropical forest. The majority of the Amazon is in Brazil, which for decades treated it as a limitless resource.
Sometimes aided by United States government funding for development, Brazil encouraged road construction that effectively opened the forest to settlement, including illegal land grabs. Crews harvested select trees for timber and then cut or burned the rest to make room for cattle ranching and soybean farming.
Deforestation was so rampant that by the middle of the last decade, 17 percent of the Amazon had been cut, and millions more acres had been damaged. Environmental groups worldwide sounded the alarm, as did indigenous and traditional peoples whose ancestors had lived in the forest for thousands of years.
As deforestation hit a peak in 2004, the Brazilian government came under international condemnation, and it began trying to halt the destruction. In 2006, environmental groups found a way to bring marketplace pressure to bear.
Crops grown on deforested land, notably soybeans, were being used to produce meat for Western companies like McDonald's, creating a potential liability in the eyes of their customers. Greenpeace invaded McDonald's restaurants and plastered posters of Ronald McDonald wielding a chain saw. That company and others responded by pressuring their suppliers, who imposed a moratorium on products linked to deforestation.
The Brazilian government used satellites to step up its monitoring, cut off loans to some farmers in counties with high deforestation rates, and used aggressive police tactics against illegal logging and clearing. Brazilian state governments and large business groups, including some beef producers, joined the efforts.
The intense pressure resulted in a sharp drop in deforestation, by 83 percent, over the past decade. Moreover, the Brazilian ministry of agriculture began to focus on helping farmers raise yields without needing additional land.
Not only were millions of acres of forest saved, but the carbon dioxide kept out of the air by Brazil's success also far exceeded anything any other country had ever done to slow global warming. Norway put up substantial funds to aid the effort, but otherwise, Brazil did it without much international help.
With so little money from abroad, the gains in Brazil are considered fragile, especially if a future government were to lose interest in forest protection. Daniel C. Nepstad, an American forest scientist who has worked in Brazil for decades and now heads a group called the Earth Innovation Institute, said, ''We could still see a huge slide backward.''
The Next Big Test
With deforestation somewhat under control in Brazil, Indonesia is becoming a big test of the environmental groups' strategy.
Deforestation is rampant there, with people chopping down even national forests with impunity. The biggest reason is to clear land for the lucrative production of vegetable oil from the fruit of a type of palm tree.
Just a handful of companies sell the oil -- used in a wide array of consumer goods like soap, ice cream, confections and lipstick -- into global markets, and the environmental groups have been targeting these big middlemen. Companies controlling the bulk of the global palm-oil trade have recently signed no-deforestation pledges, and Indonesia's influential chamber of commerce recently threw its weight behind a demand for new forest legislation in the country.
But even if Indonesia takes strong action, there are fears that the gains could prove fleeting. The economic incentive to chop down forests remains powerful, and crackdowns on deforestation can just spur profiteers to go elsewhere.
''Asian companies are rushing into Africa and grabbing as much land as possible,'' said Mr. Hurowitz, of Climate Advisers. ''That's kind of scary.''
Still, with hopes running high that the world may finally be rounding a corner on the deforestation problem, attention is turning to the possibility of large-scale forest regrowth.
Dr. Chazdon believes strongly in halting deforestation, but she says that many of the plots of old-growth forest that have already been saved are too small to ensure the long-term survival of the plants and animals in them. Forest expansion onto nearby land could help to conserve that biological diversity, in addition to pulling carbon dioxide out of the air.
But the strategy presents many challenges. It will require abandoning marginal agricultural land, meaning the remaining farms will have to become more efficient to keep up with demand for food, as well as a growing demand for biofuels. And some scientists have warned that if the strategy is poorly executed, agriculture could merely be pushed away from forests into grasslands or savannas, which themselves contain huge amounts of carbon that could escape into the atmosphere.
Costa Rica, a ''green republic'' famous worldwide for its efforts to protect forests, shows how difficult a forest restoration strategy can be in practice.
Legal protection is minimal for much of the forest that has grown there in recent decades. The workers who help Dr. Chazdon track her plots often see telltale signs of illegal hunting and logging, and they say the authorities are lax about stopping it. ''So many ugly things happen that we just lose a little faith,'' said Mr. Paniagua, one of the workers.
Moreover, a wave of pineapple production to supply a growing world market is sweeping the country, tempting many owners to reclear their land. Growing Chinese demand, in particular, has raised the fear that ''the whole of Costa Rica will be paved in pineapples,'' said Carlos de la Rosa, director of La Selva Biological Station, a famed research outpost where Dr. Chazdon does much of her work.
But for now, the second-growth forests of Costa Rica, covering roughly 14 percent of the land area of the country, at least show what may be possible if the world gets more ambitious about tackling global warming. Brazil, too, is beginning to see regrowth on a large scale in the Amazon, and is spending millions to restore forests along its Atlantic coast.
Decades of watching the Costa Rican forests recover have taught Dr. Chazdon that, at least in areas that still have healthy forests nearby to supply seeds, the main thing human beings need to do is just get out of the way. After all, forests were recovering from fires and other natural calamities long before people ever came along to chop them down.
''The forests know how to do this,'' Dr. Chazdon said. ''They've been doing it forever, growing back.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/24/science/earth/restored-forests-are-making-inroads-against-climate-change-.html
LOAD-DATE: December 25, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: A second-growth forest in Costa Rica. The country's experience shows how difficult a forest restoration strategy can be in practice. (A1)
MONITORING REGROWTH: Bernal Paniagua Guerrero measured a tree in Costa Rica as part of extensive research on forest regrowth. The land was a cattle pasture only 45 years ago.
TREE BY TREE: Spray paint is used to help researchers keep track of growth in the Cuatro Rios forest.
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY: An early morning scene in La Selva Biological Station, a research outpost. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY ADRIANA ZEHBRAUSKAS FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)
ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURE: Protesters in Rio de Janeiro in September called for curbs on carbon emissions. (PHOTOGRAPH BY MARIO TAMA/GETTY IMAGES)
COMPETITION: Unloading palm fruit, a lucrative commodity that has led to forest clearings in Indonesia. (PHOTOGRAPH BY YT HARYONO/REUTERS) (A8)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
6 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 23, 2014 Tuesday 5:23 PM GMT
Overstock.com rejoins controversial lobbying group Alec bucking trend;
Top tech companies have cut ties with Alec due to climate change stance Retailer says it rejoined group to work on internet sales tax issues
BYLINE: Dominic Rushe in New York
SECTION: US NEWS
LENGTH: 409 words
Controversial lobbying group Alec has received an early Christmas gift from Overstock.com. The online retailer recently rejoined the group, bucking a trend among tech companies, many of which have recently disassociated themselves from it.
Alec, the American Legislative Exchange Council, has lost the support of a number of top tech firms in recent months over its stance on climate change. Last week eBay became the latest to cut ties to the group, which lobbies for legislative change at the state level.
Ebay's decision followed an exodus by tech firms that started after Microsoft quit the group. Following Microsoft's exit, Google chairman Eric Schmidt said his company could no longer be aligned with people who deny climate change. "They are just literally lying," he said. Alec denied Schmidt's charges.
Overstock was previously a member of Alec but let its membership lapse. Overstock confirmed it had rejoined Alec to lobby on internet sales taxation issues.
"Overstock.com did re-join Alec recently", said a spokesman. "Our relationship with Alec is based on the organization's access to lawmakers involved in the internet sales tax issue, which is a very weighty one for us. Alec's stance on climate change did not factor into our decision, one way or another".
Nick Surgey, director of research at the nonprofit Center for Media and Democracy, said Overstock, unlike Google and many other Silicon Valley companies, had never espoused progressive values on climate change or other issues.
Patrick Byrne, Overstock's chief operating officer, is chairman of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, a free market lobby group set up by the late Nobel economist Milton Friedman that champions vouchers for education, a cause also supported by Alec. "It appears they have made a business decision to push on a tax issue", Surgey said.
Google and Microsoft were followed away from Alec by AOL, Facebook, Yahoo and Yelp.
"In the last four months, Alec has lost the support of companies worth trillions of dollars", said Surgey.
The recent wave of tech exits followed another exodus over Alec's support of Florida's "stand your ground" legislation, which became controversial nationally after the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in 2012. Alec worked with the National Rifle Association to lobby for similar legislation in other states. Amazon, Coca-Cola, General Electric, Kraft, McDonald's and Walmart terminated their memberships after the killing.
LOAD-DATE: December 23, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
7 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 23, 2014 Tuesday 5:20 PM GMT
Ebay joins Google and others in dumping Alec over climate stance;
The online retailer is the latest tech giant to leave the right wing lobbying group over its position on climate changeAlec plans anti-environment onslaughtGoogle to cut ties with Alec over climate change 'lies'Overstock.com bucks trend and joins Alec
BYLINE: Anna Codrea-Rado
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 449 words
Ebay announced on Thursday it's severing ties with the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec) because of the lobbying group's views on climate change. The online marketplace is the latest technology firm to part ways with the rightwing organization over environmental concerns.
"After our annual review of eBay's memberships in trade associations and third-party organizations, we've decided not to renew our membership with Alec," an eBay spokesperson said.
In September, Eric Schmidt announced Google would be leaving Alec because "they're just literally lying" about climate change. This prompted a wave of departures from other tech companies, including Facebook and Yelp, over similar concerns. Microsoft had previously left Alec in July.
The current exodus from Alec marks a change from a previous round of departures, in which companies left Alec over concerns about its stance on "stand your ground" legislation.
Environmental activists welcomed eBay's move. "This is a major victory for those of us who have continued to pressure eBay executives to drop Alec," said Ryan Canney, senior campaigner from the NGO Forecast the Facts.
Nick Surgey, director of research at the Center for Media and Democracy, said: "[Nearly] Alec's entire tech membership has abandoned them over climate denial."
Remaining Alec members include tobacco, telecommunications and fossil fuel companies, prompting the question of whether Alec will move away from tech issues and focus on the interests of its remaining members.
"You have to question whether Alec will continue to even work on tech issues," Surgey said.
Jonah Sachs, co-founder and CEO of Free Range, said that beneath the surface of the decision to leave the conservative group might be a concern over the economics of tackling climate change. "Some of these companies are having to deal with the issue of whether completely free, unregulated markets can deal with the problem of climate change," Sachs said.
Canney added: "With eBay out, we're looking to AT&T, Verizon, FedEx and UPS to follow suit and distance themselves from Alec's extreme climate denial agenda. If they choose to stay with Alec, we'll be taking the issue to their customers, shareholders and employees."
Alec wasn't immediately available to respond to requests for comment as its communications team is "home for the holidays", according to multiple automated email replies.
Update: This article has been updated to include more comments.
The values-led business hub is funded by SC Johnson. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled "brought to you by". Find out more here.
LOAD-DATE: December 23, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
8 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 23, 2014 Tuesday 5:16 PM GMT
Let's leave behind the age of fossil fuel. Welcome to Year One of the climate revolution;
Tiny towns standing up to Big Oil. Gigantic marches taking on the future. Technology that works. We started to save ourselves in 2014, but we must make 2015 worth remembering - before it's too late
BYLINE: Rebecca Solnit for TomDispatch
SECTION: COMMENT IS FREE
LENGTH: 3658 words
It was the most thrilling bureaucratic document I've ever seen for just one reason: it was dated the 21st day of the month of Thermidor in the Year Six. Written in sepia ink on heavy paper, it recorded an ordinary land auction in France in what we would call the late summer of 1798. But the extraordinary date signaled that it was created when the French Revolution was still the overarching reality of everyday life and such fundamentals as the distribution of power and the nature of government had been reborn in astonishing ways. The new calendar that renamed 1792 as Year One had, after all, been created to start society all over again.
In that little junk shop on a quiet street in San Francisco, I held a relic from one of the great upheavals of the last millennium. It made me think of a remarkable statement the great feminist fantasy writer Ursula K Le Guin had made only a few weeks earlier. In the course of a speech she gave while accepting a book award, she noted:
We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings.
That document I held was written only a few years after the French had gotten over the idea that the divine right of kings was an inescapable reality. The revolutionaries had executed their king for his crimes and were then trying out other forms of government. It's popular to say that the experiment failed, but that's too narrow an interpretation. France never again regressed to an absolutist monarchy and its experiments inspired other liberatory movements around the world (while terrifying monarchs and aristocrats everywhere).
Americans are skilled at that combination of complacency and despair that assumes things cannot change and that we, the people, do not have the power to change them. Yet you have to be abysmally ignorant of history, as well as of current events, not to see that our country and our world have always been changing, are in the midst of great and terrible changes, and are occasionally changed through the power of the popular will and idealistic movements. As it happens, the planet's changing climate now demands that we summon up the energy to leave behind the Age of Fossil Fuel - and maybe with it some portion of the Age of Capitalism as well.
A little revolution in a Big Oil town, a fracking ban in the Big Apple
To use Le Guin's language, physics is inevitable: if you put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the planet warms, and as the planet warms, various kinds of chaos and ruin are let loose. Politics, on the other hand, is not inevitable. For example, not so many years ago it would have seemed inevitable that Chevron, currently the third biggest corporation in the country, would run the refinery town of Richmond, California, as its own private fiefdom. You could say that the divine right of Chevron seemed like a given. Except that people in Richmond refused to accept it, and so this town of 107,000 mostly poor non-white people pushed back.
In recent years, a group of progressives won election to the city council and the mayor's seat, despite huge expenditures by Chevron, the corporation that also brought you gigantic oil spills onshore in Ecuador and offshore in Brazil, massive contamination from half a century of oil extraction in Nigeria, and Canadian tar-sands bitumen sent by rail to the Richmond refinery. Mayor Gayle McLaughin and her cohorts organized a little revolution in a town that had mostly been famous for its crime rate and for Chevron's toxic refinery emissions, which periodically create emergencies, sometimes requiring everyone to take shelter (and pretend that they are not being poisoned indoors), sometimes said - by Chevron - to be harmless, as with last Thursday's flames that lit up the sky, visible as far away as Oakland.
As McLaughin put it of her era as mayor:
We've accomplished so much, including breathing better air, reducing the pollution, and building a cleaner environment and cleaner jobs, and reducing our crime rate. Our homicide number is the lowest in 33 years and we became a leading city in the Bay Area for solar installed per capita. We're a sanctuary city. And we're defending our homeowners to prevent foreclosures and evictions. And we also got Chevron to pay $114m extra dollars in taxes.
For this November's election, the second-largest oil company on Earth officially spent $3.1m to defeat McLaughin and other progressive candidates and install a mayor and council more to its liking. That sum worked out to about $180 per Richmond voter, but my brother David, who's long been connected to Richmond politics, points out that, if you look at all the other ways the company spends to influence local politics, it might be roughly ten times that.
Nonetheless, Chevron lost. None of its candidates were elected and all the grassroots progressives it fought with billboards, mailers, television ads, websites and everything else a lavishly funded smear campaign can come up with, won.
The billionaires and corporations engage in politics all the time, everywhere. They count on us to stay on the sidelines
If a small coalition like that can win locally against a corporation that had revenues of $228.9bn in 2013, imagine what a large global coalition could do against the fossil-fuel giants. It wasn't easy in Richmond and it won't be easy on the largest scale either, but it's not impossible. The Richmond progressives won by imagining that the status quo was not inevitable, no less an eternal way of life. They showed up to do the work to dent that inevitability. The billionaires and fossil fuel corporations are intensely engaged in politics all the time, everywhere, and they count on us to stay on the sidelines. If you look at their response to various movements, you can see that they fear the moment we wake up, show up and exercise our power to counter theirs.
That power operated on a larger scale last week, when local activists and public health professionals applied sufficient pressure to get New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to sign legislation banning fracking statewide. Until the news broke on last week, the outcome had seemed uncertain. It's a landmark, a watershed decision: a state has decided that its considerable reserves of fossil fuel will not be extracted for the foreseeable future, that other things - the health of its people, the purity of its water - matter more. And once again, the power of citizens turned out to be greater than that of industry.
Just a few days before the huge victory in New York, the nations of the world ended their most recent talks in Lima, Peru, about a global climate treaty - and they actually reached a tentative deal, one that for the first time asks all nations, not just the developed ones, to reduce emissions. The agreement has to get better - to do more, demand more of every nation - by the global climate summit in Paris in December of 2015.
It's hard to see how we'll get there from here, but easy to see that activists and citizens will have to push their nations hard. We need to end the age of fossil fuels the way the French ended the age of absolute monarchy. As New York state and the town of Richmond just demonstrated, what is possible has been changing rapidly.
In the shadow of terrible news from scientists, new technology that works - and a new kind of activism
If you look at innovations in renewable energy technologies - and this may be an era in which engineers are our unsung heroes - the future seems tremendously exciting. Not long ago, the climate movement was only hoping against hope that technology could help save us from the depredations of climate change. Now, as one of the six great banners carried in the 400,000-strong September climate march in New York City proclaimed, "We have the solutions." Wind, solar and other technologies are spreading rapidly with better designs, lower costs and many extraordinary improvements that are undoubtedly but a taste of what's still to come.
In parts of the United States and the world, clean energy is actually becomingcheaper than fossil fuels. The price of oil has suddenly plunged, scrambling the situation for a while, but with one positive side benefit: it's pushed some of the filthier carbon-intensive, cutting-edge energy extraction schemes below the cost-effective point for now.
The costs of clean energy technology have themselves been dropping significantly enough that sober financial advisers like the head of the Bank of England are beginning to suggest that fossil fuels and centralized conventional power plants may prove to be bad investments. They are also talking about " the carbon bubble " (a sign that the divestment movement has worked in calling attention to the practical as well as the moral problems of the industry). So the technology front is encouraging.
That's the carrot for action; there's also a stick.
If you look at the climate reports by the scientists - and scientists are another set of heroes for our time - the news only keeps getting scarier. You probably already know the highlights: chaotic weather, regular records set for warmth on land and at sea (and 2014 heading for an all-time heat high ), 355 months in a row of above-average temperatures, more ice melting faster, more ocean acidification, the " sixth extinction ", the spread of tropical diseases, drops in food productivity with consequent famines.
So many people don't understand what we're up against, because they don't think about the Earth and its systems much or they don't grasp the delicate, intricate reciprocities and counterbalances that keep it all running as well as it has since the last ice age ended and an abundant, calm planet emerged. For most of us, none of that is real or vivid or visceral or even visible.
For a great many scientists whose fields have something to do with climate, it is. In many cases they're scared, as well as sad and unnerved, and they're clear about the urgency of taking action to limit how disastrously climate change impacts our species and the systems we depend upon.
Everything's coming together while everything's falling apart
Jamie Henn, 350.org
Some non-scientists already assume that it's too late to do anything, which - as premature despair always does - excuses us for doing nothing. Insiders, however, are generally convinced that what we do now matters tremendously, because the difference between the best- and worst-case scenarios is vast, and the future is not yet written.
After that huge climate march, I asked Jamie Henn, a cofounder of and communications director for 350.org, how he viewed this moment and he replied, "Everything's coming together while everything's falling apart," a perfect summary of the way heartening news about alternative energy and the growth of climate activism exists in the shadow of those terrible scientific reports. This brings us to our third group of heroes, who fall into the one climate category that doesn't require special qualifications: activists.
New technologies are only solutions if they're implemented and the old, carbon-emitting ones are phased out or shut down. It's clear enough that the great majority of fossil fuel reserves must be kept just where they are - in the ground - as we move away from the Age of Petroleum. That became all too obvious thanks to a relatively recent calculation made by scientists and publicized and pushed by activists (and maybe made conceivable by engineers designing replacement systems). The goal of all this: to keep the warming of the planet to 2°C (3.5°F), a target established years ago that alarmed scientists are now questioning, given the harm that nearly 1°C of warming is already doing.
Dismantling the fossil-fuel economy would undoubtedly have the side effect of breaking some of the warping power that oil has had in global and national politics. Of course, those wielding that power will not yield it without a ferocious battle - the very battle the climate movement is already engaged in on many fronts, from the divestment movement to the fight against fracking to the endeavor to stop the Keystone XL pipeline and others like it from delivering the products of the Alberta tar sands to the successful movement to shut down coal-fired power plants in the US and prevent others from being built.
From Texas to Keystone and another tunnel in Canada, this movement is bigger - and better - than it looks
If everyone who's passionate about climate change, who gets that we're living in a moment in which the fate of the Earth and of humanity is actually being decided, found their place in the movement, amazing things could happen. What's happening now is already remarkable enough, just not yet adequate to the crisis.
The divestment movement that arose a couple of years ago to get institutions to unload their stocks in fossil fuel corporations started modestly. It is now active on hundreds of college campuses and at other institutions around the world. While the intransigence or love of inertia of bureaucracies is a remarkable force, there have been notable victories. In late September, for instance, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund - made fat upon the wealth of John D Rockefeller's founding role in the rise of the petroleum industry - pledged to divest its $860m in assets from fossil fuels. It is just one of more than 800 institutions, including church denominations, universities, cities, pension funds and foundations from Scotland to New Zealand to Seattle, that have already committed to doing so.
The Keystone pipeline could have been up and running years ago, delivering the dirtiest energy from Alberta, Canada, to the US Gulf Coast with little fanfare, had activists not taken it on. It has become a profoundly public, hotly debated issue, the subject of demonstrations at dozens of presidential appearances in recent years - and in the course of this ruckus, a great many people (including me) were clued in to the existence of the giant suppurating sore of sludge, bitumen and poison lakes that is the Alberta tar sands.
Canadian activists have done a similarly effective job of blocking other pipelines to keep this landlocked stuff from reaching any coast for export. One upshot of this: quite a lot of the stuff is now being put on trains (with disastrous results when they crash and, in the longer term, no less disastrous outcomes when they don't). This exceptionally dirty crude oil leaves behind extremely high levels of toxins in the mining as well as the refining process.
As the Wall Street Journal recently reported :
The Keystone XL pipeline was touted as a model for energy independence and a source of jobs when TransCanada Corp. announced plans to build the 1,700-mile pipeline six years ago. But the crude-oil pipeline's political and regulatory snarls since then have emboldened resistance to at least 10 other pipeline projects across North America. As a result, six oil and natural-gas pipeline projects in North America costing a proposed $15 billion or more and stretching more than 3,400 miles have been delayed, a tally by the Wall Street Journal shows. At least four other projects with a total investment of $25 billion and more than 5,100 miles in length are facing opposition but haven't been delayed yet.
The climate movement has proved to be bigger and more effective than it looks, because most people don't see a single movement. If they look hard, what they usually see is a wildly diverse mix of groups facing global issues on the one hand and a host of local ones on the other. Domestically, that can mean Denton, Texas, banning fracking in the November election or the shutting down of coal-powered plants across the country, or the movement gearing up in California for an immense anti-fracking demonstration on 7 February.
It can mean people working on college divestment campaigns or rewriting state laws to address climate change by implementing efficiency and clean energy. It can mean the British Columbian activists who, for now, have prevented a tunnel from being drilled for a tar-sands pipeline to the Pacific Coast thanks to a months-long encampment, civil disobedience and many arrests at Burnaby Mountain near Vancouver. One of the arrested wrote in the Vancouver Observer:
[S]itting in that jail cell, I felt a weight lift from my shoulders. One that I was only partially aware that I have been carrying for years now. I am ashamed by Canada's withdrawal from the Kyoto Treaty and our increasingly contemptible position on climate change. If these are the values of our society then I want to be an outlaw in that society.
This is the biggest of pictures, so find your role
Just before that September climate march in New York, I began to contemplate how human beings a century from now will view those of us who lived in the era when climate change was recognized, and yet there was so much more that we could have done. They may feel utter contempt for us. They may regard us as the crew who squandered their inheritance, like drunkards gambling away a family fortune that, in this case, is everyone's everywhere and everything. I'm talking, of course, about the natural world itself when it was in good working order. They will see us as people who fiddled while everything burned.
They will think we were insane to worry about celebrities and fleeting political scandals and whether we had nice bodies. They will think the newspapers should have had a gigantic black box above the fold of the front page every day saying "Here are some stories about other things, BUT CLIMATE IS STILL THE BIGGEST STORY OF ALL."
They will think that we should have thrown our bodies in front of the engines of destruction everywhere, raised our voices to the heavens, halted everything until the devastation stopped. They will bless and praise the few and curse the many.
There have been heroic climate activists in nearly every country on the planet, and some remarkable things have already been achieved. The movement has grown in size, power, and sophistication, but it's still nowhere near commensurate with what needs to be done. In the lead-up to the UN-sponsored conference to create a global climate treaty in Paris next December, this coming year will likely be decisive.
You are a citizen of this Earth and your responsibility is not private but public, not individual but social.
So this is the time to find your place in a growing movement, if you haven't yet - as it is for climate organizers to do better at reaching out and offering everyone a part in the transformation, whether it's the housebound person who writes letters or the 20-year-old who's ready for direct action in remote places. This is the biggest of pictures, so there's a role for everyone, and it should be everyone's most important work right now, even though so many other important matters press on all of us. (As the Philippines's charismatic former climate negotiator Yeb Sano notes, "Climate change impinges on almost all human rights. Human rights are at the core of this issue.")
Many people believe that personal acts in private life are what matters in this crisis. They are good things, but not the key thing. It's great to bicycle rather than drive, eat plants instead of animals, and put solar panels on your roof, but such gestures can also offer a false sense that you're not part of the problem.
You are not just a consumer. You are a citizen of this Earth and your responsibility is not private but public, not individual but social. If you are a resident of a country that is a major carbon emitter, as is nearly everyone in the English-speaking world, you are part of the system, and nothing less than systemic change will save us.
The race is on. From an ecological standpoint, the scientists advise us that we still have a little bit of time in which it might be possible, by a swift, decisive move away from fossil fuels, to limit the damage we're setting up for those who live in the future. From a political standpoint, we have a year until the Paris climate summit, at which, after endless foot-shuffling and evading and blocking and stalling and sighing, we could finally, decades in, get a meaningful climate deal between the world's nations.
We actually have a chance, a friend who was at the Lima preliminary round earlier this month told me, if we all continue to push our governments ferociously. The real pressure for change globally comes more from within nations than from nations pressuring one another. Here in the United States, long the world's biggest carbon-emitter (until China outstripped us, partly by becoming the manufacturer of a significant percentage of our products), we have a particular responsibility to push hard. Pressure works. The president is clearly feeling it, and it's reflected in the recent US-China agreement on curtailing emissions - far from perfect or adequate, but a huge step forward.
How will we get to where we need to be? No one knows, but we do know that we must keep moving in the direction of reduced carbon emissions, a transformed energy economy, an escape from the tyranny of fossil fuel, and a vision of a world in which everything is connected. The story of this coming year is ours to write and it could be a story of Year One in the climate revolution, of the watershed when popular resistance changed the fundamentals as much as the people of France changed their world (and ours) more than 200 ago.
Two hundred years hence, may someone somewhere hold in their hands a document from 2021, in wonder, because it was written during Year Six of the climate revolution, when all the old inevitabilities were finally being swept aside, when we seized hold of possibility and made it ours. "Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings," says Ursula K Le Guin. And she's right, even if it's the hardest work we could ever do.
Now, everything depends on it.
This essay originally appeared at TomDispatch.
LOAD-DATE: December 23, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
9 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 23, 2014 Tuesday 9:58 AM GMT
Global warming will cut wheat yields, research shows;
Production of wheat - one of the world's most important staple crops - is set to fall by 6% for every 1C rise in temperature, say scientists
BYLINE: Fiona Harvey
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 488 words
Global wheat yields are likely to fall significantly as climate change takes hold, new research has shown.
The researchers found that wheat production would fall by 6% for every 1C increase in temperatures. The world is now nearly certain to warm by up to 2C compared with pre-industrial levels, with political efforts concentrated on holding the potential temperature rise to no higher than that limit. But some analyses suggest that if greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow at current rates then warming of as much as 5C could be in store.
In forecasting the effect on wheat production - one of the world's most important staple crops - the researchers tested 30 computer models against field experiments to establish the most likely scenario.
A fall of 6% in yield may not sound dramatic, but as the world's population grows the pressure on staple crops will increase.
Food price riots have been seen in several developing countries following sudden rises of less than 10% in food prices in recent years, demonstrating the vulnerability of the poor to grain prices. The global population is currently over 7bn and is forecast to rise to at least 9bn, and potentially up to 12bn, by 2050, which will put more pressure on agricultural land and water sources.
The research also counters the optimistic projections of some climate change sceptics, who argue that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase plant growth, as they take up carbon from the air for photosynthesis. But that hypothesis has been widely questioned, as the boost to growing is likely to be outweighed by other effects, such as higher temperatures affecting germination and water availability.
The scientists behind Monday's report, published as a letter in the peer-review journal Nature Climate Change, said: "Understanding how different climate factors interact and impact food production is essential when reaching decisions on how to adapt to the effects of climate change. Temperature changes alone are reported to have potentially large negative impacts on crop production, and hotspots - locations where plants suffer from high temperature stress - have been identified across the globe."
Their research could be used to help identify adaptation strategies, potentially including genetic modification or improved plant breeding. "There are several adaptation options to counter the adverse effects of climate change on global wheat production - and for some regions this will be critical," they said. "Ensemble crop modelling could be an important exploratory tool in breeding for identified genetic targets to extend grain filling, delay maturity [both of which increase the size of the crop] and improve heat tolerance in wheat cultivars and other cereals."
The lead scientist was from the University of Florida, while a large number of other US universities, and institutions in Germany, France, Mexico, Australia and China were also involved.
LOAD-DATE: December 23, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
10 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 23, 2014 Tuesday 3:45 AM GMT
Labor returns to renewable energy target talks armed with Coalition's own advice;
Government insists on an effective cut to clean energy scheme, despite its climate advisory body concluding the opposite
BYLINE: Oliver Milman
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 505 words
Labor is set to resume talks with the government over the future of the renewable energy target (RET), but insists the Coalition needs to alter its negotiating position to fall in line with its own climate advisory body.
A Climate Change Authority (CCA) review of the RET, released on Monday, concluded that the scheme should not be cut, although it should be deferred by "up to three years" in order to restore investor confidence.
Investment in clean energy has virtually ground to a halt due to uncertainty over the future of the RET, which requires that 41,000 gigawatt hours of Australia's energy come from renewables such as solar and wind by 2020.
The government has sought a bipartisan deal to "reform" the RET but Labor walked away from negotiations earlier this month, claiming the Coalition's plan for a "real 20%" renewable target would devastate jobs and investment in the sector.
When the target was initially set, 41,000 GWh represented 20% of Australia's estimated 2020 energy production. But the country is now on course to produce 26% to 28% of its energy from clean courses by 2020, meaning a "real 20%" would be significantly less than 41,000 GWh.
The government and opposition have now signalled that talks will resume in January, but Labor said the Coalition needed to heed the CCA's findings.
"We do need to see a change in position from the government, a change from the prime minister's position either to abolish the target altogether or to severely cut it back," Mark Butler, Labor's environment spokesman, told the ABC.
"Both of those options the Climate Change Authority says in their report would be very, very unwise options."
Butler said Labor would "have another go" at seeing whether the Coalition would back away from its plan to make big cuts to the RET, which followed a separate review of the system headed by businessman Dick Warburton earlier this year.
"We've said we've got some flexibility - in spite of the fact we think the existing policy is working - but our flexibility only goes so far," Butler said. "Tony Abbott has to walk back from the ridiculous position he adopted earlier this year, which has been shown even by his own hand-picked panel to make no sense from whatever perspective you take."
But the Coalition has reiterated its position that Australia should produce no more than 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.
"We are committed to reforming the RET and will continue to seek bipartisan support for a RET that achieves a real 20% share of renewable in Australia's energy mix by 2020," said a spokeswoman for Greg Hunt, the environment minister. "The door remains open to Labor to recommence negotiations."
Th environment group WWF said its own polling from November showed that nearly nine in 10 Australians thought the RET should be retained as it is or increased.
"Cutting the Renewable Energy Target is poor policy, it will see Australia's carbon pollution go up, sustainable energy jobs lost and investment shut out," said Kellie Caught, WWF's climate campaigner.
LOAD-DATE: December 23, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
11 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 23, 2014 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
Energy Options Ebb and Grow
BYLINE: By HENRY FOUNTAIN
SECTION: Section D; Column 0; Science Desk; THE BIG FIX; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1654 words
Next week, if all goes as planned, the 42-year-old nuclear reactor at the Vermont Yankee generating station will be shut down for the last time. The steam turbine at the plant, which at its peak could make enough electricity for about half a million homes with virtually no greenhouse gas emissions, will grind to a halt.
Vermont Yankee, in the river town of Vernon near the Massachusetts border, had been the target of years of protests and lawsuits by state officials, environmentalists and others concerned about safety and radioactive waste.
But in the end, the antinuclear movement didn't kill the plant. Economics did.
''People are always surprised when we say that really wasn't the driver in shutting it down,'' said Bill Mohl, the president of a division of Entergy Corporation that operates Vermont Yankee and four other nuclear plants, including Indian Point north of New York City. Although Vermont Yankee produced power inexpensively, was upgraded recently and was licensed to operate until 2032, the plant had become unprofitable in recent years, a victim largely of lower energy prices resulting from a glut of natural gas used to fire electricity plants, Mr. Mohl said.
To its advocates, nuclear power is a potent force for fighting climate change, combining the near-zero emissions of wind and solar energy with the reliability of coal and gas. And nuclear power, which provides about 19 percent of all electricity in the United States and 11 percent worldwide, could be a greater source.
But as Vermont Yankee illustrates, the nuclear industry in the United States is having trouble maintaining the status quo, much less expanding. ''It's going nowhere quickly,'' said Sharon Squassoni, who studies energy and climate change at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Overseas, the outlook is not much better.
In addition to market forces, enormous design and construction costs, questions about new federal emissions rules, uncertainty about the long-term storage of waste fuel, and public perceptions about safety after the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan have all had an effect on the American nuclear industry.
Of the roughly 100 reactors in operation in the United States, four others have been permanently shut since 2012 because of market economics or the costs of repairs or safety improvements, and half a dozen or more are in jeopardy, industry analysts say. Safety concerns may eventually scuttle others close to large populations, including Indian Point.
Beyond five reactors under construction, few if any others are likely to be built anytime soon. And progress on a new generation of smaller, less expensive and potentially safer reactors has been slow.
Given that most of the still-profitable plants will reach the end of their useful lives by midcentury or sooner, it appears likely that nuclear power will play a diminishing role in the United States. ''We're going to be hard pressed just to replace those,'' Ms. Squassoni said.
All of this is encouraging to opponents of nuclear power, who are concerned about the costs, the potential for a major accident -- despite the industry's relatively good safety record -- and the hazards of storing spent fuel.
''These things are extremely expensive and prone to cost overruns,'' said Grant Smith, the senior energy policy analyst with the Civil Society Institute, a Massachusetts research group that advocates solutions to climate change. ''The high-level nuclear waste issue has never been addressed. You're talking about indefinite costs into the future.'' But the outlook for nuclear power dismays the industry and its supporters, including some environmentalists, who point out that replacing the lost electricity from Vermont Yankee and the other recently closed reactors with power from natural gas could result in the release of as much carbon dioxide as is produced yearly by two million cars or more.
''We can't take a carbon-free source of energy off the table,'' said Carol M. Browner, a former head of the Environmental Protection Agency who is now with Nuclear Matters, an industry-backed group.
Overseas, some nations have retrenched from nuclear power, out of necessity or by choice. Japan shut its 50 reactors for inspections and safety improvements after Fukushima, and although two were restarted briefly, all still remain shut down and not all are expected to reopen. Germany will eventually close all 17 of its reactors as part of an ambitious transition to renewable energy.
Even China, with more than two dozen nuclear plants under construction, faces uncertainties. If the country is able to exploit its abundant reserves of shale gas, its nuclear plans may be derailed, Ms. Squassoni said.
An even bigger question is whether China's current rate of economic growth is going to continue. ''If it doesn't, what is that going to do to its energy demand?'' she said. The impetus for developing more nuclear power may dissipate.
To people in the American nuclear industry, reactors do not get the respect they deserve for being both virtually emissions-free and a source of around-the-clock electricity for the grid. Experts point to the spell of extreme cold weather across much of the country last January, when nuclear plants kept working while many gas and coal plants had to shut down as the cold affected equipment and fuel supplies.
About half of the nuclear plants sell their electricity in competitive wholesale markets, which are relatively new and complex. Electricity from generators fueled by low-cost gas is priced so low that nuclear plants cannot compete, industry analysts say, and the markets also offer advantages to new power sources, especially wind turbines, over existing sources like nuclear and coal.
''The markets are quite simply not working,'' said Richard J. Myers, the vice president for policy development at the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group.
The industry is pushing for changes that would help marginal plants stay in operation. Federal price supports would be one, perhaps temporary, solution. Another would be to grant a premium to power sources, like nuclear, that can keep running under almost any circumstances.
''All of this is fixable,'' Mr. Myers said. ''The question is: Do the fixes come quickly enough?''
Other help could come as the federal government and the states develop policies under new carbon-emission rules for the power industry that were proposed by the E.P.A. in June in its Clean Power Plan. They could lead to the development of new programs, and expansion of existing ones, that put a price on greenhouse gas emissions as a means of limiting them.
''The biggest thing that is going to drive people to clean solutions is going to be a cap on carbon,'' said Christine Todd Whitman, a former New Jersey governor and E.P.A. head who is now an industry advocate.
The industry's recent struggles represent something of a reversal from the previous decade, when there was talk of a nuclear revival in the United States after nearly 30 years without any new reactor construction permits being issued. Even then, however, some experts questioned just how much nuclear power could grow in the United States and abroad, and how much it could contribute to the effort to reduce carbon emissions.
In a report she prepared in 2009, Ms. Squassoni wrote that in light of steep construction costs, only a handful of new reactors would come on line by 2015, even in the best of circumstances.
''If you really wanted to reduce carbon emissions through nuclear, it was going to be incredibly expensive,'' she said. ''You'd have to build an incredible number of power plants.''
Now plants are even more expensive, in part because of new safety requirements in the wake of Fukushima. So-called small modular reactors have been proposed as a lower-cost alternative. There are many different designs -- at least one is meant to run on waste fuel -- but the federal Department of Energy has provided significant development money only for two designs that are smaller variations of the most common kind of reactor.
Ashley Finan, an analyst with the Clean Air Task Force, which focuses on technologies to fight climate change, said that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had not made it easy for alternative designs to win backing from private investors.
''There's a lack of a clear and predictable regulatory pathway,'' Dr. Finan said. ''You're really not able to attract funding without a clear regulatory process.''
As a result, small modular reactors are many years from reality in the United States. Overseas, there are only a few isolated small-reactor projects underway, including one under construction in China.
Most modular designs have features that are intended to make them safer than existing reactors. Safety, as always, looms large in the debate about nuclear power. Although some watchdog groups point to incidents like leaks of radioactive water from some plants, the industry in the United States promotes its safety record, noting that events like unplanned reactor shutdowns are at historical lows. And the American industry's one major accident, at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979, pales in comparison with Fukushima or the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the Soviet Union.
But Peter A. Bradford, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said that in discussions of adding more nuclear power to help curb emissions and fight climate change, the issue of safety takes on a new dimension.
''You can't rationally bet a big part of your climate change abatement plan on a technology that you may suddenly find you don't want to use anymore,'' Mr. Bradford said. A major accident, for example, might force the entire industry to shut down, at least temporarily. ''There's no other low-carbon alternative with the potential to develop a large hole like that.''
The Big Fix: Articles in this series are examining potential solutions to climate change.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/science/nuclear-carbon-free-but-not-free-of-unease-.html
LOAD-DATE: December 24, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Nuclear fuel storage units at the Vermont Yankee plant, which is to shut down next week. Industry opponents cite the hazards of storing spent fuel. (PHOTOGRAPH BY TOBY TALBOT/ASSOCIATED PRESS) (D2)
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News; Series
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
12 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 23, 2014 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
Natural Gas: Abundance of Supply and Debate
BYLINE: By JOHN SCHWARTZ
SECTION: Section D; Column 0; Science Desk; THE BIG FIX; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1707 words
MEAD, Colo. -- Natural gas is the Rorschach test of energy policy. Depending on one's point of view, it can be either an essential tool for meeting the challenge of climate change or another dirty fossil fuel that will speed the planet down the path to calamitous warming.
President Obama is in the first camp. He sang the praises of natural gas in his State of the Union address in January, saying, ''If extracted safely, it's the bridge fuel that can power our economy with less of the carbon pollution that causes climate change.'' But many environmental activists have denounced shale drilling because of the potential health risks that were cited by Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York last week when he announced a ban on hydraulic fracturing in the state.
They also say that the growing use of plentiful natural gas is accelerating climate change and sapping the urgency to promote energy efficiency and developing renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. ''It's time to stop searching for a bridge and simply take the leap,'' Bill McKibben, an environmental campaigner, said earlier this year.
Because burning natural gas produces about half the planet-heating carbon dioxide than coal does for the same energy output, many energy experts suggest that natural gas has an important role to play in reducing carbon emissions. But in the debate over natural gas, nearly every fact is contested, including the amount of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, that escapes into the atmosphere while the gas is being drilled and transported. There is little doubt, however, that the abundant natural gas unearthed by hydraulic fracturing (also known as fracking) and other drilling technologies have transformed the energy economy. Natural gas now produces 27 percent of the electricity generated in the United States, and the percentage is rising. The plentiful oil and gas from the drilling boom has reduced America's dependence on foreign oil to levels not seen in decades, and has contributed to falling oil prices.
But recent studies suggest the effects of relying on natural gas and expanding its use will provide no lasting benefit to the environment compared with burning coal unless policies are enacted to hasten the adoption of renewable technologies -- to make the bridge a short one.
Since 2005, carbon emissions from electricity generation dropped to 2.05 billion metric tons a year in 2013 from 2.5 billion. (They rose slightly this year because of the unusually cold months in early 2014.) But continuing to expand the use of natural gas instead of lower-carbon alternatives could wipe out any gains, said Haewon C. McJeon, a researcher with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory who participated in a recent study on natural gas.
''In the absence of a climate-change-mitigation policy, having abundant, low-cost natural gas alone is not going to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions,'' he said.
The best role for natural gas is as a complement to renewable energy sources, said Hal Harvey, who runs a policy research group called Energy Innovation in San Francisco. He noted that power plants that run on natural gas can ramp up more easily than, say, coal or nuclear plants, and can fill the energy gaps for solar panels and wind turbines when the sun is not shining or the wind dies.
Gas-fired plants can also be built relatively quickly and cheaply -- factors that led to a jump in gas-plant construction that actually preceded the natural gas boom.
But the advantages of natural gas are offset, in part, by persistent problems and questions surrounding leaks of its main component, methane. Because of methane's ability to trap infrared radiation more effectively than CO2, its effect on climate change is 84 times greater on a 20-year basis. However, its life in the atmosphere before being eliminated by chemical reactions is measured in years, while CO2 persists for centuries.
Methane comes from many sources -- the most recent Environmental Protection Agency inventory of greenhouse gas emissions estimated that a quarter of the total comes from burps and flatulence from cows and other livestock (the microbes in their digestive systems produce methane as a byproduct of breaking down their feed).
The methane that is created or that escapes from using natural gas as an energy source represents 23 percent. Other sources include coal beds and landfills. The Environmental Protection Agency estimate puts the amount of methane released from drilling and transporting natural gas at eight million metric tons a year, but recent reports suggest the figure could be far larger.
Anthony R. Ingraffea, a researcher at Cornell University who has been sharply critical of fracking, said that the gas industry had been lax in what it calls ''wellbore integrity,'' which refers to the steel and cement that drillers use to seal off wells from the surrounding rock, soil and groundwater. The seal tends to deteriorate over time, he said, and abandoned wells have been found to leak methane, as well. ''Out of the four or five million wells drilled on earth, nobody knows how many of them are leaking into the atmosphere, or how much they are leaking,'' he said.
The industry points to progress that has already been made in reducing methane emissions -- a 73 percent decrease from hydraulically fractured wells since 2011, according to the E.P.A.
''It's difficult to look at the available data and say there is a huge problem here,'' said Steve Everley, a spokesman for Energy in Depth, an industry group. ''Not only is production increasing, but emissions are going down.''
The agency's figure on lower emissions from wells, however, does not account for the leaks that commonly occur farther downstream in the production process, where equipment like pneumatic devices and compressors have been identified as emissions sources. Research sponsored by the Environmental Defense Fund suggests that gas leaks can be cut by 40 percent at a relatively low cost: a penny for every thousand cubic feet of natural gas produced.
''The good news is we know we can get significant reductions for marginal cost,'' said Mark Brownstein, associate vice president of the organization's United States climate and energy program. Producers and regulators must do a better job of reducing risk, he said.
Fixing the problem of leaking methane can be achieved more easily than many other environmental challenges, said Mr. Harvey of Energy Innovation. Compared with ''thermodynamic problems'' like making automobiles more efficient and ''chemical problems'' like reducing smokestack pollutants, methane is largely a ''plumbing problem,'' Mr. Brownstein said, and ''plumbing is dead simple.''
One of the nation's biggest gas producers, Anadarko, said that gas leaks can be minimized without much effort. The company consulted with Colorado regulators on trailblazing state rules that call for drillers to use infrared cameras to detect leaks and then plug them quickly.
Here in Mead, 45 miles north of Denver, a production facility prepares the oil and gas from six wells for pipelines that will take the fuel to processing facilities. The big machines separate oil and recovered fluid from natural gas, and put about six million cubic feet of natural gas into the pipeline every day.
Wrench-wielding Anadarko inspectors search for leaks -- ''fugitive gas'' -- as often as monthly at major facilities, and tighten flanges that may have shaken loose. The equipment, too, is designed to minimize leaks. The valves on these pneumatic devices are run with compressed air; the more standard industry practice is to use the pressure of the extracted natural gas to power them, which means gas can escape. Instead, what is vented here is simply air.
Not every company takes such pains, and industry experts say there is a big difference between the best actors and some of the smaller players who generate more than their share of environmental damage.
Korby Bracken, Anadarko's director of health, safety and environmental issues in the Rockies, invited a visitor to look inside the steel smokestack column through a small sight glass. A pilot light burned inside, and after all the effort to capture, contain and sell gas, having it consumed in a six-inch column of flame clearly irked him. ''We'd rather put it in the pipeline,'' he said.
Anadarko officials say their goal is to use the technologies employed at this site -- which was so clean that a rabbit sat below one of its warm tanks, grooming its ears, on a chilly November day -- wherever possible. Some sites are too remote for an electrical hookup to power air compressors, but the infrared cameras are being used throughout the company's facilities.
The Obama administration has tried to straddle the promise and risks of the natural gas boom by hailing the benefits of increased production while targeting carbon and methane emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency proposed rules in June, known as the Clean Power Plan, to reduce carbon produced by electricity plants. That would call for more plants to run on natural gas rather than coal which currently produces 74 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions in the United States.
The plan also would require greater use of renewable energy sources and nuclear power in order to meet the president's target, announced last month with China, of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 28 percent by 2025.
In March, the administration announced the plan aimed at reducing methane leaks. The E.P.A., under this ''Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions,'' is expected to publish its proposed rules next month.
Ultimately, fighting over the relative merits of natural gas compared to other fossil fuels misses the broader energy challenge for the nation and the world, said Steven Cohen, the executive director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.
''Everybody's looking for a big fix -- a magic bullet,'' Mr. Cohen said. ''I don't think any of the existing technologies will do what we need to do to get to the renewable energy economy.'' The challenge, he added, is to spur the same kind of technology revolution that transformed bulky computers into pocket-size devices.
''You need some kind of technology that doesn't exist now,'' he said.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/science/natural-gas-abundance-of-supply-and-debate-.html
LOAD-DATE: December 24, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: Workers building a nuclear reactor in Waynesboro, Ga., one of just five under construction in the United States, where nuclear energy is waning. (PHOTOGRAPH BY JOHN BAZEMORE/ASSOCIATED PRESS) (D1)
Korby Bracken giving a tour of an Anadarko oil production facility. Anadarko, one of the nation's biggest gas producers, has a site so clean that on a chilly day in November, a rabbit opted to sit below one of its warm tanks. The company uses infrared cameras to detect leaks and then plug them quickly. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY MATTHEW STAVER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES
JOHN SCHWARTZ) (D3)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
13 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 23, 2014 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
Energy Options Ebb and Grow
BYLINE: By HENRY FOUNTAIN
SECTION: Section D; Column 0; Science Desk; THE BIG FIX; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1654 words
Next week, if all goes as planned, the 42-year-old nuclear reactor at the Vermont Yankee generating station will be shut down for the last time. The steam turbine at the plant, which at its peak could make enough electricity for about half a million homes with virtually no greenhouse gas emissions, will grind to a halt.
Vermont Yankee, in the river town of Vernon near the Massachusetts border, had been the target of years of protests and lawsuits by state officials, environmentalists and others concerned about safety and radioactive waste.
But in the end, the antinuclear movement didn't kill the plant. Economics did.
''People are always surprised when we say that really wasn't the driver in shutting it down,'' said Bill Mohl, the president of a division of Entergy Corporation that operates Vermont Yankee and four other nuclear plants, including Indian Point north of New York City. Although Vermont Yankee produced power inexpensively, was upgraded recently and was licensed to operate until 2032, the plant had become unprofitable in recent years, a victim largely of lower energy prices resulting from a glut of natural gas used to fire electricity plants, Mr. Mohl said.
To its advocates, nuclear power is a potent force for fighting climate change, combining the near-zero emissions of wind and solar energy with the reliability of coal and gas. And nuclear power, which provides about 19 percent of all electricity in the United States and 11 percent worldwide, could be a greater source.
But as Vermont Yankee illustrates, the nuclear industry in the United States is having trouble maintaining the status quo, much less expanding. ''It's going nowhere quickly,'' said Sharon Squassoni, who studies energy and climate change at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Overseas, the outlook is not much better.
In addition to market forces, enormous design and construction costs, questions about new federal emissions rules, uncertainty about the long-term storage of waste fuel, and public perceptions about safety after the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan have all had an effect on the American nuclear industry.
Of the roughly 100 reactors in operation in the United States, four others have been permanently shut since 2012 because of market economics or the costs of repairs or safety improvements, and half a dozen or more are in jeopardy, industry analysts say. Safety concerns may eventually scuttle others close to large populations, including Indian Point.
Beyond five reactors under construction, few if any others are likely to be built anytime soon. And progress on a new generation of smaller, less expensive and potentially safer reactors has been slow.
Given that most of the still-profitable plants will reach the end of their useful lives by midcentury or sooner, it appears likely that nuclear power will play a diminishing role in the United States. ''We're going to be hard pressed just to replace those,'' Ms. Squassoni said.
All of this is encouraging to opponents of nuclear power, who are concerned about the costs, the potential for a major accident -- despite the industry's relatively good safety record -- and the hazards of storing spent fuel.
''These things are extremely expensive and prone to cost overruns,'' said Grant Smith, the senior energy policy analyst with the Civil Society Institute, a Massachusetts research group that advocates solutions to climate change. ''The high-level nuclear waste issue has never been addressed. You're talking about indefinite costs into the future.'' But the outlook for nuclear power dismays the industry and its supporters, including some environmentalists, who point out that replacing the lost electricity from Vermont Yankee and the other recently closed reactors with power from natural gas could result in the release of as much carbon dioxide as is produced yearly by two million cars or more.
''We can't take a carbon-free source of energy off the table,'' said Carol M. Browner, a former head of the Environmental Protection Agency who is now with Nuclear Matters, an industry-backed group.
Overseas, some nations have retrenched from nuclear power, out of necessity or by choice. Japan shut its 50 reactors for inspections and safety improvements after Fukushima, and although two were restarted briefly, all still remain shut down and not all are expected to reopen. Germany will eventually close all 17 of its reactors as part of an ambitious transition to renewable energy.
Even China, with more than two dozen nuclear plants under construction, faces uncertainties. If the country is able to exploit its abundant reserves of shale gas, its nuclear plans may be derailed, Ms. Squassoni said.
An even bigger question is whether China's current rate of economic growth is going to continue. ''If it doesn't, what is that going to do to its energy demand?'' she said. The impetus for developing more nuclear power may dissipate.
To people in the American nuclear industry, reactors do not get the respect they deserve for being both virtually emissions-free and a source of around-the-clock electricity for the grid. Experts point to the spell of extreme cold weather across much of the country last January, when nuclear plants kept working while many gas and coal plants had to shut down as the cold affected equipment and fuel supplies.
About half of the nuclear plants sell their electricity in competitive wholesale markets, which are relatively new and complex. Electricity from generators fueled by low-cost gas is priced so low that nuclear plants cannot compete, industry analysts say, and the markets also offer advantages to new power sources, especially wind turbines, over existing sources like nuclear and coal.
''The markets are quite simply not working,'' said Richard J. Myers, the vice president for policy development at the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group.
The industry is pushing for changes that would help marginal plants stay in operation. Federal price supports would be one, perhaps temporary, solution. Another would be to grant a premium to power sources, like nuclear, that can keep running under almost any circumstances.
''All of this is fixable,'' Mr. Myers said. ''The question is: Do the fixes come quickly enough?''
Other help could come as the federal government and the states develop policies under new carbon-emission rules for the power industry that were proposed by the E.P.A. in June in its Clean Power Plan. They could lead to the development of new programs, and expansion of existing ones, that put a price on greenhouse gas emissions as a means of limiting them.
''The biggest thing that is going to drive people to clean solutions is going to be a cap on carbon,'' said Christine Todd Whitman, a former New Jersey governor and E.P.A. head who is now an industry advocate.
The industry's recent struggles represent something of a reversal from the previous decade, when there was talk of a nuclear revival in the United States after nearly 30 years without any new reactor construction permits being issued. Even then, however, some experts questioned just how much nuclear power could grow in the United States and abroad, and how much it could contribute to the effort to reduce carbon emissions.
In a report she prepared in 2009, Ms. Squassoni wrote that in light of steep construction costs, only a handful of new reactors would come on line by 2015, even in the best of circumstances.
''If you really wanted to reduce carbon emissions through nuclear, it was going to be incredibly expensive,'' she said. ''You'd have to build an incredible number of power plants.''
Now plants are even more expensive, in part because of new safety requirements in the wake of Fukushima. So-called small modular reactors have been proposed as a lower-cost alternative. There are many different designs -- at least one is meant to run on waste fuel -- but the federal Department of Energy has provided significant development money only for two designs that are smaller variations of the most common kind of reactor.
Ashley Finan, an analyst with the Clean Air Task Force, which focuses on technologies to fight climate change, said that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had not made it easy for alternative designs to win backing from private investors.
''There's a lack of a clear and predictable regulatory pathway,'' Dr. Finan said. ''You're really not able to attract funding without a clear regulatory process.''
As a result, small modular reactors are many years from reality in the United States. Overseas, there are only a few isolated small-reactor projects underway, including one under construction in China.
Most modular designs have features that are intended to make them safer than existing reactors. Safety, as always, looms large in the debate about nuclear power. Although some watchdog groups point to incidents like leaks of radioactive water from some plants, the industry in the United States promotes its safety record, noting that events like unplanned reactor shutdowns are at historical lows. And the American industry's one major accident, at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979, pales in comparison with Fukushima or the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the Soviet Union.
But Peter A. Bradford, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said that in discussions of adding more nuclear power to help curb emissions and fight climate change, the issue of safety takes on a new dimension.
''You can't rationally bet a big part of your climate change abatement plan on a technology that you may suddenly find you don't want to use anymore,'' Mr. Bradford said. A major accident, for example, might force the entire industry to shut down, at least temporarily. ''There's no other low-carbon alternative with the potential to develop a large hole like that.''
The Big Fix: Articles in this series are examining potential solutions to climate change.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/science/nuclear-carbon-free-but-not-free-of-unease-.html
LOAD-DATE: December 24, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Nuclear fuel storage units at the Vermont Yankee plant, which is to shut down next week. Industry opponents cite the hazards of storing spent fuel. (PHOTOGRAPH BY TOBY TALBOT/ASSOCIATED PRESS) (D2)
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News; Series
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
14 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 22, 2014 Monday 6:05 AM GMT
Direct Action unlikely to meet emissions target, says Climate Change Authority;
Advisory body also finds renewable energy target should remain at existing level but deadline could be pushed back to allow for investment uncertainty
BYLINE: Oliver Milman
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1162 words
The government's climate advisory body has delivered a stark assessment of the Coalition's policies, stating it was unlikely that its Direct Action policy would meet Australia's 5% emissions reduction target and calling for the renewable energy target (RET) to remain intact.
The Climate Change Authority, which the Coalition unsuccessfully attempted to abolish, has conducted two statutory reviews for the government: one on the RET and one on the carbon farming initiative (CFI).
The existing CFI is being expanded into the $2.55bn Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF), which is the centrepiece of the Coalition's Direct Action climate plan. The fund will provide voluntary grants to businesses that wish to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
The review by the Climate Change Authority (CCA) said the evidence showed the ERF, in its current form, would "fall well short of achieving the reductions required to meet Australia's minimum 2020 target", which is a 5% emissions reduction based on 2000 levels.
This damning assessment adds to previous independent modelling showing the policy would be insufficient. The government has conducted no modelling of its own on whether the policy would work, but has repeatedly expressed its confidence the target would be reached, partly because emissions from areas such as manufacturing have been declining due to other factors.
The UN has cast doubt on whether Direct Action would meet the emissions target, stating in November that Australia was one of just four countries on course to miss 2020 emissions reduction goals.
But the CCA said it was too early to completely write off the ERF, given that it had yet to start purchasing carbon abatement and that the "safeguards" mechanism - which would ensure emissions did not rise elsewhere in the economy - had yet to be finalised.
Complementary action, such as the purchasing of international carbon permits and a "robust" RET, could also help Australia meet its 5% goal, although the target itself was "inadequate" and should be increased, according to a previous CCA review.
The CCA's report raised the concern that emissions abatement purchased through the fund would occur anyway and recommended the government consider an "additionality" test that would ensure emissions were cut beyond business-as-usual levels.
The authority's RET review recommended the target not be altered, although the timescale to achieve it should be deferred by "up to three years".
The government held a review of the RET earlier this year, headed by the businessman Dick Warburton, rather than rely on the CCA's advice. The Warburton review recommended the RET be either scaled back or abolished.
Under the existing RET, 41,000 gigawatt hours of Australia's electricity must come from clean sources, such as solar and wind, by 2020. The government is attempting to cap this target at a "real 20%", which the renewables industry has said would involve a substantial cut to jobs and investment in the sector.
Labor, which has previously walked away from talks with the Coalition on the future of the RET, is seeking to re-establish contact on the issue. Labor and the Greens oppose any major cut to the RET.
The CCA's report said that while the level of the large-scale RET target, which covers large solar and wind farms, should remain, pushing the timeframe beyond 2020 would help the target be reached due to the huge uncertainty in the sector that has seen investment drop 70% in just the past year.
The RET is projected to reduce Australia's emissions by 58m tonnes between 2015 and 2020, and "by much larger amounts in later periods", the CCA report stated. It has been of "modest" cost to industry and energy consumers, it added.
"The RET arrangements are not perfect but, in the authority's view, they are effective in reducing emissions (at reasonable cost) in the centrally important electricity sector," the report said. "Given the absence of effective alternative measures bearing upon this sector, the authority does not favour any significant scaling back of the 2020 LRET target of 41,000 GWh."
The chief executive of the Climate Institute, John Connor, said: "The CCA report notes that the emissions intensity of Australia's electricity sector is higher than that of China and the rest of the OECD and that renewable energy will play a major role in cleaning up our power sector.
"The Climate Institute calls on the government to step back from plans to dramatically reduce the RET and for both the government and the ALP to provide bipartisan support for renewable energy in Australia in recognition of the need to urgently decarbonise our energy sector."
The chairman of the CCA, Bernie Fraser, said there was neither a broad community consensus on the risk of climate change nor a "well-stocked toolbox" to reduce emissions.
"The earlier broad political consensus has ruptured in recent years, and no early repair is in prospect," he said. "And the toolbox is feeling less weighty, with the removal of the carbon pricing mechanism, an unproven ERF, and an uncertain outlook for the RET."
The Coalition attempted to scrap the CCA but a deal struck with the Palmer United party meant its survival until 2016, in return for PUP Senate votes to implement the ERF.
The CCA will now review the effectiveness of emissions trading, as well as what Australia's emissions reductions target should be beyond 2020. Countries' post-2020 goals will be submitted early next year ahead of crunch climate talks in Paris.
The chief executive of the CCA, Anthea Harris, told Guardian Australia it had been a "strange year" for the government agency.
"We have got a job to do now and we will be making recommendations in the broader public interest," she said. Asked if she expected the government to take on board the CCA's work, she said: "We'll wait and see."
Harris said there was "huge uncertainty" over the future of the RET and the effectiveness of the ERF.
Mark Butler, Labor's environment spokesman, said: "All of the experts agree that Tony Abbott's relentless reversal on action to tackle climate change is ideology that flies in the face of facts, logic and economic responsibility."
A spokeswoman for Greg Hunt, the environment minister, said the government would carefully consider the reports and will respond in due course.
"We are committed to reforming the RET and will continue to seek bipartisan support for a RET that achieves a real 20% share of renewable in Australia's energy mix by 2020," she said. "The door remains open to Labor to recommence negotiations.
"The government welcomes the authority's assessment that the Emissions Reduction Fund streamlines existing arrangements and expands coverage to allow crediting of emissions reductions across the economy.
"The government is making strong progress implementing its ERF, with preparations for the first auction well underway, and nearly 20 new draft ERF methods released to expand emissions reduction opportunities for business across the economy."
LOAD-DATE: December 22, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
15 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 21, 2014 Sunday 11:17 PM GMT
2014 in review: a cavalcade of grim events abroad ends with one frighteningly close to home;
It was a terrible year for the Abbott government: it struggled with the budget, angered critics on climate change and introduced controversial legislation on terrorism and asylum seekers. But its troubles paled against the havoc wrought by Ebola, Isis, the Ukraine conflict and then the Sydney cafe siege
BYLINE: David Marr
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 3522 words
The year was much more than the Lindt cafe, though 2014 will come to be remembered for little else. Most years have their hostage dramas, usually pathetic affairs that end with the sacked worker or the estranged husband putting down his gun and disappearing into jail. But this was the work of an Iranian-born madman in a year that's seen the world alarmed by a new brand of terrorism with many names: the Islamic State, Isis and Isil.
All the easy predictions for Australian politics in 2015 were junked in the hours of the siege. The killings in the Lindt cafe didn't change Australia, but they will change the tenor of public life in this country for a long time. The theme song of politics is no longer the budget blues. The harsh critiques of Tony Abbott's first full year in office now look provisional.
Even so, 2014 was a terrible year for the new prime minister. Great trade pacts were signed; G20 brought the world leaders to Australia; the carbon tax is dead and gone; the seaborne invasion of Australia by refugees has been defeated; the Palmer United party has splintered under the strain - yet Abbott and his government have languished in public esteem.
Pollsters have no precedent for such a slide in the fortunes of a first-term government. By New Year's Day, the voters who put Abbott in office had already changed their minds. The Liberals are departing. How the Lindt cafe will play into this we don't yet know. There was a moment after the terrorism scare in September when the graphs steadied. They may steady again. But in 2014 after that brief pause, the gap between the parties measured by Essential, Ipsos and Newspoll widened steadily month by month.
In late November the Australian put its protege on notice. The paper has chided Abbott once or twice since he came to power. Those were mere tugs on the reins. The November editorial "The Abbott government is doomed without a narrative" marked rumbling in the political foundations. No Australian prime minister needs to be reminded of an iron rule of politics in this country: News Limited backs winners.
No one disputes Abbott's achievement in one key area in 2014: shaping political language. He has given the nation "team Australia", "shirtfront" and - particularly lately - "death cult". George Brandis offered his own take on "metadata" and Scott Morrison entrenched "on-water matters" as Canberra's new way of saying: "Get lost, we're not going to tell you".
A plague year
This year began early with the death of a child in a village in Guinea. Children die easily in that country and no particular heed was paid, but two-year-old Emile Ouamouno was patient zero. His mother died a few days later, then his sister Philomène and, on New Year's Day, his grandmother. All had shown the same terrible symptoms: fever, vomiting and black diarrhoea.
The village of Meliandou lies in a remote corner of the country near the borders of Sierra Leone and Liberia. Mourners returning home from the grandmother's funeral carried the disease with them to their villages and a nearby city. Death began to stalk the region. Nurses died. Doctors fled. But it was more than two months before a team from the Ministry of Health arrived to investigate.
Blood samples were sent to Lyon and Hamburg. On 24 March, news broke that the mysterious killer in Guinea was Ebola. By year's end, nearly 7,000 people in six countries had died. Ebola reached the US and Europe. For a few weeks it seemed the disease might even land here. First and foremost, 2014 was a plague year.
Australia's response was grudging. This is new. Humanitarian gestures used to be our glory. But 2014 was a year we showed ourselves especially discriminating in the face of world challenges. Ebola: excuses, delay and a little money. Global warming: excuses, delay and slippery promises. Refugees: a shark net flung across the oceans. Foreign aid: cuts of $11bn over the next four years. Isis's conquest of Mosul: deployment of the RAAF.
Some years rush by. Not this 2014. It's hard to believe, in December, that Schapelle Corby was released from her Bali prison in February. Kate and William were surely spinning their strange magic in another century? No, the royal tour was in April. Though an almost forgotten figure these days, the premier of New South Wales, Barry O'Farrell, glassed himself with an old bottle of Grange only in April.
Time played this trick because, until its dramatic end, the year was strangely shapeless. It was one of long, slow slides. The slide of slides was the iron ore spot price: from US$135 at the start of January to below US$70 now. Iron is taking the nation down. Growth is slowing. Tax revenue is falling away. So are confidence, the share market and the dollar.
The slide took Gina Rinehart 11 places down the Forbes list of the world's 100 most powerful women. She now sits 27th, one spot behind Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat leader in the US House of Representatives. It's tough for the Rinehart children: if the price of iron ore slips much further, there may be little point in them suing their mother.
Savings have had to be made in Canberra, savings that show where the government's heart lies. Not sacrificed in the welter of small economies was $245.3m to put chaplains into high schools for the next five years. How can such largesse be funded? Easy: by matching cuts of $254m from the ABC over the same five years.
Even so, religion has had a mixed year, with a royal commission putting Christianity through the wringer. One cardinal, several bishops, priests, ecclesiastical officials, church lawyers and hellfire preachers found themselves in the least likely situation for men of the cloth: a witness box being cross examined about children raped and abused, their abusers sheltered and assets hidden from victims. The grim work continues.
Rolf Harris, 84, was jailed in July on 12 counts of indecent assault of young women and girls. Other great judgments in 2014 include Oscar Pistorius, 28, for culpable homicide; Craig Thomson, 50, for stealing $5,650 from the Health Services Union; and Freya Newman, 21, for leaking details of the $60,000 scholarship awarded by the Whitehouse Institute of Design to the prime minister's daughter Frances in 2011. No conviction was recorded in her case.
Burqa panic amid anti-terrorism laws
Islamophobes in government ranks were hobbled. At the last minute, the minister for social services, Kevin Andrews, abandoned plans to deliver the opening address to the World Congress of Families in August where Islam, euthanasia, divorce and homosexuality were to come under hardline attack. Other no-shows were official congress supporters and Liberal senators Eric Abetz and Cory Bernardi.
Bernardi is not easily stopped. After the dawn raids of September he tweeted: "Note burqa wearers in some of the houses raided this morning? This shroud of oppression and flag of fundamentalism is not right in Aust." Thus began the brief great Canberra burqa panic of 2014.
Bronwyn Bishop, responding to the senator's fears and baseless talkback rumours of black-clad demonstrators descending on parliament, ordered the segregation behind glass in the public galleries of all women with covered faces. None in burqa had ever been seen in parliament before. None appeared now. After an agony of public embarrassment which seemed to last far longer than a fortnight, the Speaker reversed herself.
The raids that gripped Bernardi and the nation were carried out by 800 or so NSW and federal police, backed by Asio officers, in 16 suburbs of Sydney and Brisbane. Arrested and charged was Omarjan Azari, 22, whose tapped telephone call a few days earlier had provoked the security sweep. He's now facing trial for preparing to commit a terrorist act. His barrister, Winston Terracini SC, claims the phone call was mistranslated. "There was at least one appalling error which goes to the absolute crux of whether this man ever actually acquiesced in the carrying out of a terrorist act."
Parliament passed two anti-terrorism laws in the aftermath of the raids. One gives the government power to punish Australians for travelling to no-go zones abroad. The second threatens journalists - among others - with prison for up to 10 years for unmasking undercover Asio agents or exposing Asio's new "special intelligence operations".
Abbott has, after the shootings in the Lindt cafe, commended a third bill waiting in the wings: "We do face a very real threat from people who want to do us harm and who invoke this death cult ideology as a justification, and that's why we put forward the metadata retention laws, that is why we are determined to deal with them as quickly as we can in the new year."
Freedom Abbott has not survived transition to government. "We are the freedom party," an exuberant Abbott told the Institute of Public Affairs in opposition. "We stand for the freedoms which Australians have a right to expect and which governments have a duty to uphold." To be fair, he was speaking at a particular time with a particular purpose: encouraging the Murdoch press to weather all scorn in the pursuit of Julia Gillard over her dodgy boyfriend Bruce Wilson, her home renovations and a 1992 AWU slush fund.
News Limited sleuth Hedley Thomas had a cache of fresh documents and the revival of the scandal at this point was gold for Abbott. Thomas hardly needed the leader of the opposition's encouragement. Over the years since he has written - or had a hand in writing - a further 89 stories about Gillard, Wilson and the slush fund totalling some 85,529 words.
Unimpressed by this gargantuan effort was Dyson Heydon of the royal commission into trade union governance and corruption. Last week he concluded : "Julia Gillard did not commit any crime and was not aware of any criminality on the part of these union officials."
This was a year that proved predictions wrong. In March, after 12 years in office, the Labor government of South Australia survived another election. In June flame-haired Rebekah Brooks was acquitted on all charges arising out of the News of the World phone hacking scandal. In November, officer Darren Wilson of Ferguson, Missouri, was not sent to trial by a grand jury for killing unarmed black teenager Michael Brown. Riots followed. And later the same month, the former president of Egypt Hosni Mubarak had charges over the sale of gas to Israel and the slaughter of protesters dropped by a Cairo court.
Still awaiting justice in Egypt is Peter Greste, who is accused with two al-Jazeera colleagues of defaming Egypt on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood. Despite there being no evidence against him, Greste was sentenced to seven years in June. The Abbott government has pledged every effort to have the Australian journalist out of jail and home by his 50th birthday. He turned 49 in December.
Brickbats and bouquets for Australia
Frankly, 2014 was not a year in which the applause of the world rained down on Australia. Particularly narky were international refugee and human rights bodies that failed to enter the spirit of Australia's war against the boats.
The United Nations high commissioner for refugees, Antonio Guterres, took Australia to task for towing refugees back to Indonesia; for forcing refugees to live in camps on Manus Island and Nauru; for conditions in those camps; for doing a deal to offload refugees on Cambodia; and for repudiating, late in the year, the principle of non-refoulement, the historic obligation under international law not to return victims of persecution to their persecutors.
"Would you have me abandon the policies that are working?" asked the minister for immigration, Scott Morrison. There's another word for the lexicon of recent Australian political English: "working".
In December, Senate crossbenchers caved in to a threat so grubby it has already entered the history books: Morrison told them he would keep holding 100 or more children in detention on Christmas Island until they gave him absolute power to decide the fate of refugees in Australia. Malcolm Fraser raged at the senators for handing Morrison these "dictatorial, tyrannical powers" and "tearing up international conventions, practices of international law, all necessary if we are ever to establish a better and a safer world".
Of course 2014 wasn't all brickbats. The world also had a number of bouquets to present Australia:
In March, we collected a record haul of Oscars with Cate Blanchett declared best actress for her role in Woody Allen's Blue Jasmine, and Catherine Martin winning two more for production and costume design on The Great Gatsby.
On 7 October, the OECD declared Canberra the best place in the world to live.
On 14 October, Tasmanian Richard Flanagan won the $90,000 Man Booker Prize and on 8 December, thanks to the personal intervention of the man himself, a $40,000 share of the Prime Minster's Literary Award for his novel A Narrow Road to the Deep North.
But Stockholm disappointed. Though we had no Nobels in 2014, some splendid discoveries announced this year promise prizes down the track:
In July, scientists from Sydney, Harvard, Stanford and MIT announced they'd found a way to bio-print artificial vascular networks. The hope is to produce, one day, organs for transplant at the press of a button.
In October, Flinders University palaeontologist John Long, having looked hard at fossils of extremely ancient fish, declared: "The very first act of copulation was done sideways, square-dance style."
But nothing beats Rome for discoveries. Pope Francis and Emeritus Pope Benedict joined forces in St Peter's square in April to reveal that their predecessors, John XXIII and John Paul II, were saints. John has only a single miracle to his name but the recovery of Sister Caterina Capitani after stomach surgery is considered astonishing enough to earn his canonisation.
Despite the removal of the nun's stomach, pancreas and spleen, she continues to lead an active life having applied to her fistula a fragment of the bed sheet on which John died. According to reports, the dead pope appeared to her in a dream and declared: "Eat what you want."
No let-up in bewildering trends
On the food front: kale passed its peak. Cupcakes are dead. Mexican restaurants are opening on every corner. Meals are served on breadboards. Sharing is mandatory. Yotam Ottolenghi went mainstream. Ribs are big. Peruvians can no longer afford quinoa. While the 2:5 diet cuts a swath across Australia, real men are staying on Paleo.
Topknots and woodcutter beards are it this year. Skin is still inked, a trend stimulated by the sight of rapper 360 (aka Matt Colwell) on Q&A in October with his tattooed neck in a suit, shirt and tie. Ties are back. Ditto suits, but tight. Men's clothes are tight. Pants short.
In July Ian Thorpe declared: "I'm not straight." Despite his star power, coming out did not become fashionable for sportsmen in 2014, though the assumption that men's professional sport is an absolutely heterosexual world was left looking more ragged than ever. The Sydney Convicts won the international gay rugby competition, the Bingham Cup. Attending the match in August was the governor of NSW, Dame Marie Bashir.
Talk about camp: 2014 saw Tony Abbott bring back knights and dames. He called this "an important grace note in our national life."
Women's fashion is dominated by sports luxe, that is, dressing as if always on the way to pilates. Hipster women try to look like librarians, sweet librarians. Twin sets and pearls are not out of the question. Dots are big. The fashion lead given this year by royalty is rather confusing: broderie anglaise and G-strings.
Architects report their world is post-beige. Instead of limestone floors, Moroccan concrete tiles. Corrugated iron endures. Brass is back. The dressing room has swamped the walk-in wardrobe. Downstairs the look is industrial: black walls, knife-edge stainless steel and rough wood. The indispensable kitchen appliance of 2014 was the sub-zero fridge.
For the love of coal
The world continues to warm despite the best efforts of the Coalition. Last year was Australia's warmest and the World Meteorological Organisation predicts 2014 will be the hottest recorded on the globe. The 21st century has so far delivered 13 of the hottest years ever recorded. And, by the by, investment in renewable energy in Australia this year dropped 70%.
Abbott's resolve in the face of these figures was, for much of the year, absolute. He withdrew funding from the Climate Council as soon as he was elected and in March abolished the Department of Climate Change. With the backing of coal miner Clive Palmer, the carbon tax was abolished in July and the Coalition's Direct Action plan, which will cost $2.55bn over the next four years, became law in October.
True, the Senate baulked at further destruction of Labor's strategies, but these were significant political victories. At the opening of the Caval Ridge coalmine in central Queensland in October, Abbott declared : "Coal is good for humanity, coal is good for prosperity, coal is an essential part of our economic future, here in Australia, and right around the world."
But the prime minister was not bringing the public with him. Essential polls revealed in November that only 28% of us consider Australia is taking the right approach to climate change. And a bare 1% see bushfires, floods and cyclones as less likely in the future. Now, figures like that resonate with a prime minister. A ministerial tag team eventually flew to Lima for the UN climate change conference in December, and Abbott kicked $200m into the UN's Green Climate Fund.
In an Australian first, two ministers reproached a president of the United States. Barack Obama's deal with China on his way to G20 and his pep talk to Queensland University students the day he arrived made him the least welcome US president since anti-war protesters lay in front of Lyndon Johnson's motorcade in Sydney. But this was not 1966 all over again. This time, the students applauded and the government was outraged when Potus warned: "The incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened."
A grim sweep of war and death
This was a year of invasions.
Crimea was in Russian hands by March. At this point, Russia also had troops fighting in eastern Ukraine. According to the UN, fighting there has already claimed 4,000 lives including 38 Australians among the 298 killed when flight Mhl was shot out of the sky. The foreign affairs minister, Julie Bishop, confronted Vladimir Putin in Milan and at G20 over the crash. He would promise only to assist access to the crash site. Fighting continues.
Isis swept across Iraq in June, killing, raping, beheading and bombing in the name of the Caliphate. The rebels swiftly seized Iraq's second city, Mosul, and established a regime of extreme Islamic law. According to the UN, more than 5,500 had been killed in the fighting by October.
After kidnappings and rocket fire, Israel invaded Gaza in July. This was the third invasion of the Palestinian territory by Israel in the past seven years. The invasion ended in August, leaving 71 Israelis and 2,100 Palestinians dead.
In November, in the far depths of space, after a 10-year journey, the European Space Agency placed little Philae on the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Alas, it bounced and landed in the shade.
Death cut its usual swath through Hollywood in 2014. Many gathered were of great age: Shirley Temple, Mickey Rooney, Joan Rivers, Eli Wallach and Maria, the last of the Trapp family singers. But some were too young to go: Robin Williams, 63, took his own life and Philip Seymour Hoffman, 46, was carried off by heroin, cocaine, benzodiazepines and amphetamine.
Truly astonishing was the slaughter of great conductors in 2014: Claudio Abbado, once of La Scala and the Berlin Philharmonic; Lorin Maazel of the New York Philharmonic; Frans Bruggen of the Orchestra of the 18th Century; and Christopher Hogwood of the Academy of Ancient Music.
Departing also was a phalanx of world leaders long past their years of power: General Wojciech Jaruzelski of Poland; Ian Paisley of Northern Ireland; Eduard Shevardnadze of the Soviet Union and Georgia; General Ariel Sharon of Israel; Jean-Claude (Baby Doc) Duvalier of Haiti and Gough Whitlam.
Whitlam's death in October provoked a truce not unlike - and not much longer than - the football games in no man's land at Christmas 1914. For a brief time public life was seen at its best. Politicians behaved. Great speeches were delivered. Commentators - not all of them - put aside their old agendas. This couldn't last, of course, but in death as well as life Gough reminded us of what we might be.
But 2014 ended with flowers heaped in Martin Place in Sydney to remember two citizens killed by a madman who, for a moment, captured the attention of the world. Tori Johnson was the young manager of the Lindt cafe and Katrina Dawson, a barrister who worked upstairs, was among his many customers that morning buying chocolate and coffee. It isn't time yet for them to rest in peace. The new year will be dominated by the search for answers to a single question: why did they die?
LOAD-DATE: December 21, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
16 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 21, 2014 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
The 12.7.14 Issue
SECTION: Section MM; Column 0; Magazine Desk; REPLY ALL; Pg. 8
LENGTH: 708 words
FRANCIUM KILLED MY GREAT-GREAT AUNT
The incidences of radiation-related disease in the Curie laboratory were especially tragic, because the dangers from radioactivity were recognized early on. Scientists elsewhere were far more careful. In Berlin, for example, Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn worked with radioactivity for decades, beginning in the early 1900s, and both lived to be nearly 90. Their students were strictly trained in handling radioactive substances, for health reasons but also to prevent contamination of their labs. These clean labs were essential for detecting minuscule amounts of radioactivity, making it possible for Hahn, Meitner and Fritz Strassmann to discover nuclear fission in 1938. RUTH LEWIN SIME, Sacramento, posted on nytimes.com
I do not want to offer justification for Marie Curie's attitude toward safety, but it seems as if there was a belief among many scientists of the time that all scientific knowledge was an unalloyed good, certain to benefit humanity, and therefore the risks were justified. The biggest ethical lapse, however, was for Curie to impose her recklessness on her subordinates. In Veronique Greenwood's haunting article, the attitude at the laboratory comes across as that of a cult. ARAYBOULD, Irvington, N.Y., posted on nytimes.com
CYRUS VANCE, DATA D.A.
Cyrus Vance Jr.'s use of data to stop crime is much more sensible and effective than a stop-and-frisk policy. The numbers provide a live, moving grid of trends and persons, revealing patterns before they would be noticed otherwise. This use of information doesn't inflame communities or generate anger and hostility; it can be used to reduce threats to officers; it can help make charges and sentences fit the crimes; it works to address the paradox of how equality under the law is maintained while threats are deterred and detained. WALTER RHETT, Summerville, S.C., posted on nytimes.com
I believe that Vance is conflating causation with correlation. He believes that his use of data has caused a decrease in crime in Manhattan. That may be so. But many changes have occurred in Manhattan since 2010 that may also be factors. One that I've observed is the increasing cost of living in Manhattan that is driving out lower-income people. If the D.A. is focused only on looking good on paper, there are many ways to manipulate data. If the use of data is really causing a decrease in crime, that is terrific news for New York City, but we won't know unless we look at the causation. Vance may simply be in the right place at the right time. DCL, New Jersey, posted on nytimes.com
RADIO-FREE SYRIA
Raed Fares epitomizes the triumph of the human spirit in the midst of unimaginable suffering. I agree with his assessment that Syria has become Obama's Rwanda. There will be no peace for the Syrian people until Assad is forcibly removed from office. Until then, I will stand in solidarity with the millions of Syrians who simply seek what all people deserve: freedom and dignity. Zeya, Fairfax, Va., posted on nytimes.com
THE BIG PICTURE ON CLIMATE CHANGE
The climate-change angle we usually ignore is the apocalyptic side of the human ''success story'' -- our phenomenal growth in population to seven billion from one billion in little more than two centuries. But our cleverness in transforming fossil-fuel energy into labor-saving technology and high-yield agriculture has gone to our heads. It's not just the climate denialists who are anti-science; it's also those renewable-energy optimists who ignore basic laws of thermodynamics and entertain the fantasy that it will be possible for seven billion to live in the style of the American middle class. The new story we need to tell is ''managed degrowth'' -- gradually but significantly paring down our demands for resources and learning to live within the ecological budget of the earth. ANDO ARIKE, New York, posted on nytimes.com
EMAIL letters to magazine@nytimes .com or post comments at nytimes.com /magazine. Letters should include the writer's name, address and daytime telephone number. We are unable to acknowledge or return unpublished submissions. Letters and comments are edited for length and clarity. The address of The New York Times Magazine is 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10018.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/magazine/reply-all-the-12714-issue.html
LOAD-DATE: December 22, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: DRAWING (DRAWING BY MICHAEL KIRKHAM)
GRAPHICS: ANALYTICS: Bird by Bird: Rebecca Solnit's essay on birds killed by alternative power plants engaged readers in a discussion about the difficulty of seeing the big picture on climate change.
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
17 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 21, 2014 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
Reply All: The 12.7.14 Issue
SECTION: Section MM; Column 0; Magazine Desk; REPLY ALL; Pg. 8
LENGTH: 714 words
FRANCIUM KILLED MY GREAT-GREAT AUNT
The incidences of radiation-related disease in the Curie laboratory were especially tragic, because the dangers from radioactivity were recognized early on. Scientists elsewhere were far more careful. In Berlin, for example, Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn worked with radioactivity for decades, beginning in the early 1900s, and both lived to be nearly 90. Their students were strictly trained in handling radioactive substances, for health reasons but also to prevent contamination of their labs. These clean labs were essential for detecting minuscule amounts of radioactivity, making it possible for Hahn, Meitner and Fritz Strassmann to discover nuclear fission in 1938. RUTH LEWIN SIME, Sacramento, posted on nytimes.com
I do not want to offer justification for Marie Curie's attitude toward safety, but it seems as if there was a belief among many scientists of the time that all scientific knowledge was an unalloyed good, certain to benefit humanity, and therefore the risks were justified. The biggest ethical lapse, however, was for Curie to impose her recklessness on her subordinates. In Veronique Greenwood's haunting article, the attitude at the laboratory comes across as that of a cult. ARAYBOULD, Irvington, N.Y., posted on nytimes.com
CYRUS VANCE, DATA D.A.
Cyrus Vance Jr.'s use of data to stop crime is much more sensible and effective than a stop-and-frisk policy. The numbers provide a live, moving grid of trends and persons, revealing patterns before they would be noticed otherwise. This use of information doesn't inflame communities or generate anger and hostility; it can be used to reduce threats to officers; it can help make charges and sentences fit the crimes; it works to address the paradox of how equality under the law is maintained while threats are deterred and detained. WALTER RHETT, Summerville, S.C., posted on nytimes.com
I believe that Vance is conflating causation with correlation. He believes that his use of data has caused a decrease in crime in Manhattan. That may be so. But many changes have occurred in Manhattan since 2010 that may also be factors. One that I've observed is the increasing cost of living in Manhattan that is driving out lower-income people. If the D.A. is focused only on looking good on paper, there are many ways to manipulate data. If the use of data is really causing a decrease in crime, that is terrific news for New York City, but we won't know unless we look at the causation. Vance may simply be in the right place at the right time. DCL, New Jersey, posted on nytimes.com
RADIO-FREE SYRIA
Raed Fares epitomizes the triumph of the human spirit in the midst of unimaginable suffering. I agree with his assessment that Syria has become Obama's Rwanda. There will be no peace for the Syrian people until Assad is forcibly removed from office. Until then, I will stand in solidarity with the millions of Syrians who simply seek what all people deserve: freedom and dignity. Zeya, Fairfax, Va., posted on nytimes.com
THE BIG PICTURE ON CLIMATE CHANGE
The climate-change angle we usually ignore is the apocalyptic side of the human ''success story'' -- our phenomenal growth in population to seven billion from one billion in little more than two centuries. But our cleverness in transforming fossil-fuel energy into labor-saving technology and high-yield agriculture has gone to our heads. It's not just the climate denialists who are anti-science; it's also those renewable-energy optimists who ignore basic laws of thermodynamics and entertain the fantasy that it will be possible for seven billion to live in the style of the American middle class. The new story we need to tell is ''managed degrowth'' -- gradually but significantly paring down our demands for resources and learning to live within the ecological budget of the earth. ANDO ARIKE, New York, posted on nytimes.com
EMAIL letters to magazine@nytimes .com or post comments at nytimes.com /magazine. Letters should include the writer's name, address and daytime telephone number. We are unable to acknowledge or return unpublished submissions. Letters and comments are edited for length and clarity. The address of The New York Times Magazine is 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10018.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/magazine/reply-all-the-12714-issue.html
LOAD-DATE: February 3, 2015
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: DRAWING (DRAWING BY MICHAEL KIRKHAM)
GRAPHICS: ANALYTICS: Bird by Bird: Rebecca Solnit's essay on birds killed by alternative power plants engaged readers in a discussion about the difficulty of seeing the big picture on climate change.
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
18 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 20, 2014 Saturday 11:11 AM GMT
The best nature books of 2014;
Today, I share a list of what I consider to be the best nature books of the year, hoping that you'll find lots of interesting and unusual ideas for all the naturalists on your holiday gift-giving list!
BYLINE: GrrlScientist
SECTION: SCIENCE
LENGTH: 3002 words
Yesterday, when I was tearing through my bookshelves hoping to discover books to include on my Best Bird Books of 2014 list, I ran across a number of wonderful nature books that I had to share with you, too. In retrospect, it is interesting to note that I had a much more difficult time choosing these titles because nature literature is a broader and more-difficult-to-define genre than is, say, bird literature, and also because I have a more complete library of nature writing from 2013 than from 2014.
Braiding Sweetgrass : Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants by Robin Wall Kimmerer [408 pages, Milkweed Editions, 2014; Amazon UK hardcover / paperback / kindle UK ; Amazon US hardcover / paperback / kindle US ]
Publisher's synopsis: As a botanist and professor of plant ecology, Robin Wall Kimmerer has spent a career learning how to ask questions of nature using the tools of science. As a Potawatomi woman, she learned from elders, family, and history that the Potawatomi, as well as a majority of other cultures indigenous to this land, consider plants and animals to be our oldest teachers. In Braiding Sweetgrass, Kimmerer brings these two lenses of knowing together to reveal what it means to see humans as "the younger brothers of creation." As she explores these themes she circles toward a central argument: the awakening of a wider ecological consciousness requires the acknowledgement and celebration of our reciprocal relationship with the world. Once we begin to listen for the languages of other beings, we can begin to understand the innumerable life-giving gifts the world provides us and learn to offer our thanks, our care, and our own gifts in return.
Winner of the 2014 Sigurd F. Olson Nature Writing Award.
.
Diary of a Citizen Scientist: Chasing Tiger Beetles and Other New Ways of Engaging the World by Sharman Apt Russell [224 pages, Oregon State University Press, 2014; Amazon UK paperback / kindle UK ; Amazon US paperback / kindle US ]
Publisher's synopsis: In the exploding world of citizen science, hundreds of thousands of volunteers are monitoring climate change, tracking bird migration, and following their bliss counting stardust for NASA or excavating mastodons. The sheer number of citizen scientists, combined with new technology, has begun to shape how research is conducted. Non-professionals become acknowledged experts: dentists turn into astronomers and accountants into botanists. Diary of a Citizen Scientist is a timely exploration of this phenomenon, told through the lens of nature writer Sharman Apt Russell's yearlong study of a little-known species, the Western red-bellied tiger beetle. In a voice both humorous and lyrical, Russell recounts her persistent and joyful tracking of an insect she calls "charismatic," "elegant," and "fierce." Patrolling the Gila River in southwestern New Mexico, collector's net in hand, she negotiates the realities of climate change even as she celebrates the beauty of a still-wild and rural landscape. Russell's self-awareness --of her occasionally-misplaced confidence, her quest to fill in "that blank spot on the map of tiger beetles," and her desire to become newly engaged in her life -- creates a portrait not only of the tiger beetle she tracks, but of the mindset behind self-driven scientific inquiry. Falling in love with the diversity of citizen science, she participates in crowdsourcing programs that range from cataloguing galaxies to monitoring the phenology of native plants, applauds the growing role of citizen science in environmental activism, and marvels at the profusion of projects around the world. Diary of a Citizen Scientist offers its readers a glimpse into the transformative properties of citizen science -- and documents the transformation of the field as a whole.
.
Claxton: Field Notes from a Small Planet by Mark Cocker [256 pages, Jonathan Cape (Random House Group), 2014; Guardian bookshop ; Amazon UK hardcover / kindle UK ; Amazon US hardcover / kindle US ]
Publisher's synopsis: In a single twelve-month cycle of daily writings Mark Cocker explores his relationship to the East Anglian landscape, to nature and to all the living things around him. The separate entries are characterised by close observation, depth of experience, and a profound awareness of seasonal change, both within in each distinct year and, more alarmingly, over the longer period, as a result of the changing climate. The writing is concise, magical, inspiring.
Cocker describes all the wildlife in the village -- not just birds, but plants, trees, mammals, hoverflies, moths, butterflies, bush crickets, grasshoppers, ants and bumblebees. The book explores how these other species are as essential to our sense of genuine well-being and to our feelings of rootedness as any other kind of fellowship.
A celebration of the wonder that lies in our everyday experience, Cocker's book emphasises how Claxton is as much a state of mind as it is a place. Above all else, it is a manifesto for the central importance of the local in all human activity.
.
.
Shrewdunnit: The Nature Files by Conor Mark Jameson [300 pages, Pelagic Publishing, 2014; Guardian bookshop ; Amazon UK hardcover / kindle UK ; Amazon US kindle US ]
Publisher's synopsis: Conor Mark Jameson has spent most of his life exploring the natural environment and communicating his enthusiasm for it to family, friends and, more recently, readers of a range of newspapers and magazines. Shrewdunnit brings together the best of these dispatches, alongside unpublished essays, in a poetic and evocative journal that inspires and delights. Jameson's prose is fresh and in places irreverent, with a hint of mischief and a dash of wit.
From his back door to the peaks of New Zealand and the swamp forests of the Peruvian Amazon, he carries on the biogumentary style he perfected in his earlier books showing never telling how to bring nature and conservation home. He may just have invented a genre.
.
.
.
.
A Buzz in the Meadow by Dave Goulson [288 pages, Jonathan Cape (Random House Group), 2014; Guardian bookshop ; Amazon UK hardcover / paperback / kindle UK ; Amazon US hardcover / kindle US ]
Publisher's synopsis: In A Buzz in the Meadow Goulson tells the story of how he bought a derelict farm in the heart of rural France, together with 33 acres of surrounding meadow and how, over a decade, he has created a place for his beloved bumblebees to thrive. But other creatures live there too, myriad insects of every kind, many of them ones that Goulson has studied before in his career as a biologist. You will learn about how a deathwatch beetle finds its mate, about the importance of houseflies, why butterflies have spots on their wings, about dragonfly sex, bed-bugs and wasps. Goulson is brilliant, and very funny, at showing how scientists actually conduct experiments.
The book is also a wake-up call, urging us to cherish and protect life on earth in all its forms. Goulson has that rare ability to persuade you to go out into your garden or local park and get down on your hands and knees and look. The undiscovered glory that is life in all its forms on planet Earth is there to be discovered. And if we learn to value what we have, perhaps we will find a way to keep it.
A Sting in the Tale, Dave Goulson's account of a lifetime studying bumblebees, was one of the most gratifying success stories of 2013. Brilliantly reviewed, it was shortlisted for the Samuel Johnson Prize for the best non-fiction book of the year. A Buzz in the Meadow is another call to arms for nature lovers everywhere.
.
Cold Blood: Adventures with Reptiles and Amphibians by Richard Kerridge [304 pages, Chatto & Windus (Random House Group), 2014; Guardian bookshop ; Amazon UK hardcover / kindle UK ; Amazon US hardcover / kindle US ]
Publisher's synopsis: As a boy, Richard Kerridge loved to encounter wild creatures and catch them for his back-garden zoo. In a country without many large animals, newts caught his attention first of all, as the nearest he could get to the African wildlife he watched on television. There were Smooth Newts, mottled like the fighter planes in the comics he read, and the longed-for Great Crested Newt, with its huge golden eye.
The gardens of Richard and his reptile-crazed friends filled up with old bath tubs containing lizards, toads, Marsh Frogs, newts, Grass Snakes and, once, an Adder. Besides capturing them, he wanted to understand them. What might it be like to be cold blooded, to sleep through the winter, to shed your skin and taste wafting chemicals on your tongue? Richard has continued to ask these questions during a lifetime of fascinated study.
Part natural-history guide to these animals, part passionate nature writing, and part personal story, Cold Blood is an original and perceptive memoir about our relationship with nature. Through close observation, it shows how even the suburbs can seem wild when we get close to these thrilling, weird and uncanny animals.
.
In Search of Lost Frogs: The Quest to Find the World's Rarest Amphibians by Robin Moore [256 pages, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014; Guardian bookshop ; Amazon UK hardcover / kindle UK ; Amazon US hardcover / kindle US ]
Publisher's synopsis: On August 9, 2010, 33 teams from 21 countries were dispatched to search for the Lost Frogs identified by Conservation International. On their list were a host of species including, in the top ten most wanted, the Rio Pescado Stubfoot Toad, found only in Ecuador -- which was to prove a triumphant rediscovery. Several months, a number of key rediscoveries -- such as the Elegant Tropical Frog, last seen in 1937 and the Chalazodes Bubble-nest Frog -- last seen in 1874 and two new species later, the Search for Lost Frogs had generated more than 650 news articles in 20 countries and over a billion potential viewers.
Author Robin Moore was responsible for spearheading the Search for Lost Frogs and coordinating the teams. He also co-led two expeditions to Colombia and Haiti. In Colombia in search of the Mesopotamia Beaked Toad, the steamy jungles of the Choco yielded not the desired species but a brand new one -- the Mr. Burns Toad, so-called because of an uncanny resemblance to the Simpsons' character; the species was selected as one of Time magazine's top ten new species of 2010. In Haiti the team found six frogs last seen 20 years before, including the Ventriloqual Frog, named for its ability to throw its voice.
This fascinating new book tells the story of the expedition -- its highs and lows, discoveries and failures and the campaign's ongoing work. Despite the campaign, one third of the world's amphibians remain threatened with extinction. Most of the species searched for were not found. But those that were provide a glimmer of hope. Understanding why these species have survived when many others have not should help us understand what makes these species different. In Search of Lost Frogs is a story of perseverance, disappointment, rediscovery, resilience, but ultimately of hope, written with passion and illustrated with the author's superb photographs.
.
The Hunt for the Golden Mole: All Creatures Great and Small, and Why They Matter by Richard Girling [320 pages, Chatto & Windus (Random House Group), 2014; Guardian bookshop ; Amazon UK hardcover / paperback / kindle UK ; Amazon US hardcover / kindle US ]
Publisher's synopsis: This story is a quest for an animal so rare that a sighting has never been recorded. The Somali golden mole was first described in 1964. It is mentioned in a number of textbooks, but the sole evidence for its existence is a tiny fragment of jawbone found in an owl pellet. Intrigued by this elusive creature, and what it can tell us about extinction and survival, Richard Girling embarks on a hunt to find the animal and its discoverer -- an Italian professor who he thinks might still be alive...
Richard's journey comes at a time when one species -- our own -- is having to reconsider its relationship with every other. It is also a quest for knowledge. He delves into the history of exploration and the tall tales of the great hunters, explores the science of collecting and naming specimens, traces the development of the conservation movement and addresses the central issues of extinction and biodiversity. The Hunt for the Golden Mole is an engaging story which illustrates the importance of every living creature, no matter how small, strange or rare. It is a thoughtful, shocking, inspiring and important book.
.
When Eagles Roar: The Amazing Journey of an African Wildlife Adventurer by James Alexander Currie and Bonnie J. Fladung [Ukhozi Press, 2014; Amazon UK paperback / kindle UK ; Amazon US paperback / kindle US ]
Publisher's synopsis: Follow the daring safari of James Currie as his love of birds, fascination with wildlife and craving for adventure lead him into humorous and life threatening situations. James captures the essence of what it means to be African today, facing everything from the Big Five to the vestiges of apartheid to the AIDS epidemic. He provides authoritative information on African wildlife and illustrates hair-raising encounters with lions, buffalo, leopards, elephants, rhinoceros and snakes through exciting and humorous stories. The book follows James's journey from city boy to conservationist and shows what it takes to become an African game ranger. From his first graphic encounter with the brutality of nature on Table Mountain in South Africa to his disappearance as a boy on safari in Malawi to the rigorous training he underwent to become a game ranger at Phinda Private Game Reserve, this book will delight and educate anyone fascinated with nature, wildlife, travel and adventure. James provides wonderful insights into African conservation and a fascinating glimpse into the importance of cross-cultural relationships in Africa's wildlife tourism environment. He details his own inner journey overcoming physical challenges and finding the balance between following passions and what's important in life.
.
The Galápagos: A Natural History by Henry Nicholls [256 pages, Profile Books, 2014; Guardian bookshop ; Amazon UK hardcover / paperback / kindle UK ; Amazon US hardcover / kindle US / Audible audio download ]
Publisher's synopsis: Charles Darwin called it "a little world within itself." Sailors referred to it as "Las Encantadas" -- the enchanted islands. Lying in the eastern Pacific Ocean, straddling the equator off the west coast of South America, the Galápagos is the most pristine archipelago to be found anywhere in the tropics. It is so remote, so untouched, that the act of wading ashore can make you feel like you are the first to do so.
Yet the Galápagos is far more than a wild paradise on earth -- it is one of the most important sites in the history of science. Home to over 4,000 species native to its shores, around 40 percent of them endemic, the islands have often been called a "laboratory of evolution." The finches collected on the Galápagos inspired Darwin's revolutionary theory of natural selection.
In The Galápagos, science writer Henry Nicholls offers a lively natural and human history of the archipelago, charting its course from deserted wilderness to biological testing ground and global ecotourism hot spot. Describing the island chain's fiery geological origins as well as our species' long history of interaction with the islands, he draws vivid portraits of the life forms found in the Galápagos, capturing its awe-inspiring landscapes, understated flora, and stunning wildlife. Nicholls also reveals the immense challenges facing the islands, which must continually balance conservation and ever encroaching development.
Beautifully weaving together natural history, evolutionary theory, and his own experience on the islands, Nicholls shows that the story of the Galápagos is not merely an isolated concern, but reflects the future of our species' relationship with nature -- and the fate of our planet.
.
Handbook of the Mammals of the World: Sea Mammals edited by Don E. Wilson and Russell A. Mittermeier [614 pages, Lynx Edicions, 2014; Guardian bookshop ; Amazon UK hardcover ; Amazon US hardcover ]
Publisher's synopsis: Marine mammals include some of the most fascinating animals on Earth. Large, majestic whales and stunning, playful dolphins have provided mysterious companionship to humans at sea for hundreds of years. These magical creatures, along with the equally fascinating manatees, dugongs, seals, sea lions, and walrusses, have developed a completely different set of adaptations from their terrestrial ancestors and relatives. Volume 4 of the HMW series provides complete accounts of all species and families in these important groups. Lavishly illustrated with colour photographs showing different behaviours of all of them, the text contains the latest up-to-date information on all families of sea mammals.
.
.
You may also be interested to peruse my choices for Best Birds Books, Best Popular Science Books (Biological sciences), Best Popular Medicine Books and Best Popular Science Books (Physical sciences) for 2014.
Did I miss something? Feel free to add it in comments below, so other readers can check it out.
......................
When she's not got her nose stuck in a book, GrrlScientist is very active on twitter @ GrrlScientist and lurks on social media: facebook, G+, LinkedIn, and Pinterest.
LOAD-DATE: December 20, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
19 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 20, 2014 Saturday
Late Edition - Final
Obama Unbound
BYLINE: By TIMOTHY EGAN.
Gail Collins is off today.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; CONTRIBUTING OP-ED WRITER; Pg. 21
LENGTH: 785 words
There may not be a lightness to his step, a lilt in his voice or a bit of jauntiness returned to his manner. The office ages everyone prematurely, and makes spontaneity all but impossible. But President Obama is acting like a man who's been given the political equivalent of a testosterone boost.
Perhaps the best thing to happen to him was the crushing blow his party took in the midterm elections. Come January, Republicans will have their largest House majority in 84 years -- since Herbert Hoover was president. Granted, no politician wants to join Hoover and history in the same sentence. But Obama is not cowering or conceding. He's been liberated by defeat, becoming the president that many of his supporters hoped he would be.
He promised to be transformative. Instead, especially in the last two years, he's been listless, passive, a spectator to his own presidency. Rather than setting things in motion, he reacted to events. Even Ebola, the great scare that prompted so much media hysteria it was awarded Lie of the Year by PolitiFact, was somehow his fault. No more. Of late, the president who has nothing to lose has discovered that his best friend is the future.
On normalizing relations with Cuba, on a surprising climate change initiative with China, on an immigration gamble that's working, and executive orders to protect the world's greatest wild salmon fishery in Alaska or try to root out gender pay disparities, Obama is marching ahead of politicians fighting yesterday's wars. In setting an aggressive agenda, he has forced opponents to defend old-century policies, and rely on an aging base to do it.
Are Republicans really going to spend the first year of their new majority trying to undo everything the president has done -- to roll back the clock? Will they defend isolation of Cuba against the wishes of most young Cuban-Americans? Will they restore a family-destroying deportation policy, when Obama's de-emphasis on sending illegal immigrants home has already given him a 15-point boost among Latinos? Will they take away health insurance from millions who never had it before? Will they insist that nothing can be done on climate change, while an agreement is on the table for the world's two biggest polluters, the United States and China, to do something significant?
The President Obama of the last six weeks is willing to take that bet. The tediously cautious, adrift president who governed before his party was rejected in November never would have.
Of course, it helps to have the wind at his back -- gusts of good news.
Remember when Mitt Romney promised to bring unemployment down to 6 percent by the end of his first term? Obama has done him one better: two years ahead of schedule, unemployment is 5.8 percent. The economy added 321,000 jobs last month and average hourly wages actually rose, on pace to make 2014 the best year for financially battered Americans in almost a decade. And if there's a Republican somewhere who predicted that gas prices would be well below $3 a gallon in year six of the Obama presidency, bring that prescient pol forward.
Remember, also, the man-crush that Republicans had on Vladimir Putin? Ohhh, Vlad -- such a leader! Forceful, militarily aggressive, a manly man. Obama the plodder was getting played by Putin the Great. Now, the Russian president better keep his shirt on, for his country is teetering, increasingly isolated, its currency in free fall. Plunging oil prices have shown just how fragile a nation dependent on oil can be.
And speaking of oil, the incoming Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has vowed, as one of his first orders of business, to push forward Keystone XL, the proposed pipeline to move Canada's dirty oil though the American heartland. There's one problem: With low energy prices, the pipeline may no longer pencil out. It's a bust, potentially, in a free market awash with cheap oil.
With the Cuba opening, one of those events that seem obvious to all the minute it takes shape, the president has Pope Francis as a diplomatic co-conspirator. This leaves Republican opponents of fresh air in Havana lecturing the most popular man on the planet. Even after that all-dogs-go-to-heaven thing turned out to be something that was lost in translation, the pope's blessing of the Cuba initiative will beat hot air from a half-dozen senators.
Obama's trademark caution in a crisis still serves him well. He kept his head during the Ebola meltdown when everyone else was losing theirs. Had we gone jaw to jaw with Putin over Ukraine, rather than building the case for sanctions, the world would be far messier. But in finally learning how to use the tools of his office, Obama unbound is a president primed to make his mark.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/opinion/obama-unbound.html
LOAD-DATE: December 20, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Op-Ed
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
20 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 19, 2014 Friday 12:29 PM GMT
Major coral bleaching in Pacific may become worst die-off in 20 years, say experts;
Warm sea temperatures are causing massive coral reef die-off across the Northern Pacific in what could be the start of an historic bleaching event around the world
BYLINE: Karl Mathiesen in Majuro
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 658 words
Scientists warn extreme sea temperatures could cause a "historic" coral reef die-off around the world over the coming months, following a massive coral bleaching already underway in the North Pacific. Experts said the coral die-off could be the worst in nearly two decades.
Reports of severe bleaching have been accumulating in the inbox of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Coral Reef Watch programme since July.
A huge swathe of the Pacific has already been affected, including the Northern Marianas Islands, Guam, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Hawaii, Kiribati and Florida. Some areas have recorded serious bleaching for the first time.
"On a global scale it's a major bleaching event. What it may be is the beginning of a historic event," said Coral Reef Watch coordinator Dr Mark Eakin.
In the Marshall Islands, bleaching of unprecedented severity is suspected to have hit most of the country's 34 atolls and islands. The Guardian witnessed devastated expanses of coral that look like forests covered with snow.
Warm water will soon begin hitting reefs in the southern Pacific and the Indian Ocean as the seasons and currents shift. Eakin said coral watch modelling predicts bleaching on Australia's Great Barrier Reef as early as January.
Bleaching is caused by persistent increases in sea surface temperature. Just 1C of warming lasting a week or more can be enough to cause long-term breakdown of reef ecosystems.
The worst coral bleaching event on record is a mass die-off during 1998. A massive El Niño event combined with climate change to raise global sea and air temperatures to never-before-recorded levels and killed around 15% of the world's corals.
2014 has already surpassed 1998 as the hottest year recorded - with a mild El Niño still predicted in the new year.
Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, a coral reef expert from the University of Queensland, said the current bleaching event was on track to be as bad or worse than 1998.
"Many coral reef scientists are expecting something similar to 1997-98 to unfold in the next six to 12 months."
Eakin said even under a weak El Niño, bleaching could continue until 2016 - lasting twice as long as the 1998 event. High sea surface temperatures due to climate change are making El Niño a less decisive factor in coral bleaching.
"Despite the fact that there's really not a big El Niño, we're seeing these patterns of severe bleaching. So what's happening is, as global temperatures increase and especially as the ocean warms through the increase of carbon dioxide and other heat trapping gases in the atmosphere, it's warming the ocean so that it doesn't take as big an El Niño to have the same effect on water temperatures," said Eakin.
Initial analysis of the Guardian's photos from the Marshallese atoll of Arno showed its reefs could be added to the fast-growing list of seriously affected places. In less extreme temperatures bleached coral may not die completely.
But Karl Fellenius, a coral reef manager from the University of Hawaii said that in the Marshall Islands "it's looking like the thermal stress was so profound that the corals died within days of getting bleached".
This does not augur well for the future of the world's reefs under climate change.
"The real problem is that recovery from a major bleaching event can take decades and these events keep coming back every 10 years or less... [Reefs] just don't have time to recover," said Eakin.
The combined effect of rising temperatures and sea levels - corals can only survive near the surface - could mean the end for coral reefs in the next 50 years even if world leaders combine to keep global temperature rise below their target of 2C, said Hoegh-Guldberg, who was lead oceans author for the UN's definitive climate science report.
"Temperatures projected under even mild climate change scenarios may be too damaging to coral reefs for them to survive beyond the mid to late part of this century."
LOAD-DATE: December 19, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
21 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 19, 2014 Friday 7:00 AM GMT
Sustainable development goals: eight ways to make reality match ambition;
The development targets that will come into force next year reflect high ideals, but delivering on them will involve a transformation of the global economy
BYLINE: Alex Evans
SECTION: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT
LENGTH: 846 words
Next year, governments will agree a new global development framework of breathtaking ambition. We already know the likely shape of the sustainable development goals (SDGS) , which will include targets ranging from ending poverty to reducing inequality both within and between countries; from better governance and peaceful societies to action on climate change, ecosystem restoration, and a big shift towards sustainable consumption and production.
But the real test of governments' commitment isn't the loftiness of the goals. It's what they're prepared to do to reach them. The SDGs are far more ambitious than the millennium development goals (MDGs), which they will replace, and delivering them will be harder. Unfortunately, there seems little prospect of a deal on delivery that is as ambitious as the goals themselves.
Imagine a political deal that is ambitious on the one hand, but still feasible - as a working paper by the UN Foundation and the Center on International Cooperation does - and you have a package of measures that falls a long way short of "getting to zero" on poverty in 15 years, much less moving towards more sustainable and inclusive globalisation.
What would it look like if the world was serious about a major transformation of the global economy to achieve these goals by 2030? Here are eight ideas.
· Wealthier countries would get much more serious about assessing their domestic policies for potential risks to fragile states. They' would look at arms sales, financial regulation and money-laundering, anti-bribery and anti-corruption legislation, tax havens, extractive industries and drug prohibition. They would subject their policies to rigorous risk assessment - and ensure these assessments triggered ministerial and/or parliamentary discussions where necessary. And they would make the whole process transparent.
· They would subject their economic policies to a similar assessment - especially in high-impact areas like tax, subsidies, trade and migration. Assessing the international impact on food prices of domestic biofuel mandates, for example, would be conducted as a matter of course. Once again, there would be provision for public disclosure and ministerial and parliamentary discussions.
· Global climate policy would be driven by an independent body with powers to advise on the right level for a carbon budget and monitor countries' performance against their shares of it - just as the independent committee on climate change does in the UK under the 2008 Climate Act. Politicians, with their short-term re-election imperatives, will always have a conflict of interest when it comes to taking hard, long-term decisions about emissions reductions. Just as many governments have relinquished the power to set interest rates, so they need to do likewise on carbon budgets.
· This global carbon budget would be shared between countries on an equal, per capita basis. If anything on Earth is the common property of all humanity, it's the sky. The need for fair sharing of a safe emissions budget is unavoidable. This would set the stage for emissions trading to become a massive new source of development finance, potentially much bigger than aid, and especially for the world's lowest emitters: the least developed countries.
· Dividends from using natural resources like land, water and the atmosphere, which belong to all of us, should accrue to society at large. Oil and mineral wealth, for example, would be recognised as the property of all a country's citizens - and regarded as stolen assets when the proceeds from selling such resources were manifestly benefiting vested interests rather than the people.
· Governments would make a presumption against intellectual property in areas of high development or sustainability impact. We need a much more open system for socially and environmentally valuable technologies, including greater use of royalties, prize funds or advance purchase commitments - and much more public funding for research and development.
· We need a financial system built for the long term. With global equities worth $50tn (£32tn) and sovereign and intergovernmental debt of $100tn, there's no shortage of capital looking for yield. But in recent years, capital has too often flowed to where it's part of the problem (subprime property, commodity speculation, new fossil fuel sources that can never be burned in a 2C scenario). We need to change the rules of the game - such as fiduciary responsibilities for institutional investors - as well as smart ways of blending public and private finance.
· Liberalise migration. The economist Branko Milanovic suggests that as much as half of variability in incomes is accounted for by where people are born and the citizenship they have. Unless poor countries grow much faster than rich ones, or rich countries suddenly develop an appetite for global redistribution, the only way to a more equal world is if poor people can work in rich countries - which is also in developed countries' interests as they confront the demographic challenges of ageing populations.
LOAD-DATE: December 19, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
22 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 18, 2014 Thursday 6:39 PM GMT
We can't let climate change turn droughts, flash floods and mudslides into the new normal;
Holding out for winter rain or implementing short-term fixes won't fix California's water crisis. We need action on the state, federal and international level
BYLINE: Rep Michael Honda and Michael Shank
SECTION: COMMENT IS FREE
LENGTH: 705 words
Between power outages, deluging rains, flash floods, mudslides and record droughts, California is quickly becoming unrecognizable - all the bellwethers of an ecosystem out of whack. Thanks to a rapidly changing climate making wet regions wetter and dry regions drier, 2014 will be the hottest year on record - and, if we're not careful, the Bay Area's recent #HellaStorm will soon become the norm.
Everyone in the state knows the severity of the problem: we're in the midst of our worst drought in 1,200 years ; our winter snow pack, which provides approximately one-third of the state's water supply, was at record lows in 2014; last winter's weather was the warmest in the last 119 years ; and ocean surface temperatures off the coast of California are at record highs. The wrath of a warming planet is being felt more powerfully than ever before.
Unfortunately, within the halls of Congress and across California, there remains a misguided belief that we can legislate our way out of this drought. But short-term fixes like piping enough water from one locale to another or conservation and efficiency measures, won't be sufficient to address urban and rural water shortages - and no amount of Pineapple Express rapid rainfall will fix the over-tapped and exhausted water supply. Both will be a mere drop in California's near empty bucket. Furthermore, short-term fixes for this water crisis don't address the long-term problem of climate change, which is causing this crisis and will undoubtedly cause more.
This is not simply a California problem. California supplies nearly half of all U.S. fruits, vegetables, and nuts, so any drought directly impacts the diets of all Americans. And the state is not solely culpable for its own climate disaster, nor can it fix them by itself: heavy carbon dioxide emissions, whether from the East Coast or East Asia, are contributing to the extreme weather that California is now experiencing.
The good news is that 2014, while being the hottest year on record, also saw unprecedented public and political support for action on climate change. Most Americans now recognize that climate change is happening, are willing to pay more for cleaner and greener energy, and are keen to vote for candidates who will take action on our climate. The 400,000-person People's Climate March in New York, timed with the UN Climate Summit in September, illustrates the public's appetite for aggressive action.
Meanwhile, the historic US-China climate deal and the commitment by the European Union to reduce their emissions 40% by 2030, are excellent examples of worldwide leadership. Even in the halls of Congress - traditionally not the friendliest space for environmental policy - climate change is now a bipartisan, and both Republicans and Democrats are speaking out and taking action. There's even a conservation-minded group of members of the Tea Party movement called the Green Tea Coalition pushing for more investment in solar power.
The critical next steps to save California - and every other state of the union that will witness extreme weather in the coming years - from the effects of climate change requires work by federal, state, and local governments - and close coordination with the private sector.
Achieving the US government's goal of reducing emissions 80 percent by 2050 - which is necessary for us to survive this century - requires: a steady transition to renewable energy; a phase-out of dirty fossil fuels and the subsidies that support them; the pursuit of low-hanging conservation and efficiency initiatives in transportation, infrastructure, and utility sectors; and a national campaign to get the public thoroughly on board.
There is no more patriotic pursuit than reversing climate change and its effects. Our national security depends on it, since climate change is a threat multiplier, making unstable regions even more insecure and potentially violent. Our health depends on it, as extreme weather is already killing thousands of Americans each year. Our economy depends on it, as myriad billion-dollar natural disasters are destroying our economic infrastructure and devastating industries.
The time to act on climate is now - before another #HellaStorm becomes #HellaCommon.
LOAD-DATE: December 18, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
23 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 18, 2014 Thursday 10:43 AM GMT
French National Front launches nationalist environmental movement;
Extreme right accused of inconsistent stance on environmental issues with the launch of eco-nationalist New Ecology movement
BYLINE: Arthur Neslen
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 703 words
The launch of a 'New Ecology' movement by France's National Front (FN) this week has been condemned by environmentalists as opportunistic and inconsistent.
The far right eco-nationalist grouping was launched by Marine Le Pen, with a 'patriotic' platform of opposition to international climate talks and support for France's nuclear industry.
The FN has made political capital about cruelty to animals in the preparation of halal and kosher meat in the past, and its MEPs are preparing a resolution that would limit shale gas exploration, despite the party voting against a shale moratorium in the last parliament.
"The New Ecology movement is based on national interest and patriotism. We have to be closer to our people and not against our country's interests," the FN MEP and environment committee member Mireille d'Ornano told the Guardian
Marine Le Pen's father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, was a climate sceptic who once cut open a watermelon to illustrate how environmentalists were supposedly red communists underneath. But the issue of whether human activity caused global warming was "a very technical question," d'Ornano said.
"We have to find a balanced position and we don't have to be politically correct or ideologically biased about it. There are pros and cons to the scientific evidence. We have to find out what really comes from human activity, or doesn't."
The world's leading climate scientists in the UN's Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change last year said that the evidence linking human activity to global warming was "unequivocal".
But d'Ornano dismissed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the international climate talks process, as a "communist project," adding: "We don't want a global agreement or global rule for the environment."
Yannick Jadot, a French Green MEP, said that the new FN grouping was a sham.
"They never talk about biodiversity because that means respecting diversity," he told the Guardian. "They oppose animal cruelty, but they also defend hunters and big agricultural industries. They pretend to defend fish but vote in favour of deep sea fisheries. Again today [Wednesday] they voted in favour of allowing Canadian tar sands in EU fuel."
The FN also takes a strong stand in favour of nuclear power, which d'Ornano described as an issue of "national sovereignty", although all the uranium used in France's reactors comes from abroad, according to EurActiv France.
In philosophical terms, the FN was presenting idealised visions of a past natural order to mask the monocultural hierarchy that they would replace it with, Jadot argued.
"The extreme right say it was better before because we were all white and Christian - Catholic - and gay weddings were not an issue and we were somehow in a better relation with nature. This is now part of a fake image that they are trying to sell about the former order in terms of family, nature and race," he said.
New Ecology's launch closely follows a spectacular, if unsuccessful, campaign by 'eco-nationalists' in Switzerland to cap immigration levels at 0.2% of the resident population.
In Hungary, the neo-Nazi Jobbik party has campaigned against invasive flora from abroad which they say is destroying Hungarian plants and animals as it spreads unchecked.
The far-right Danish People's Party is virulently opposed to immigration, multi-culturalism and multi-ethnicity. But it also pledges "to ensure that the way in which the earth's resources are used bears the stamp of consideration, care and a sense of responsibility for the natural world and all its living creatures."
With rising discontent among the young unemployed in France finding expression in the Sivens Dam campaign, and a traditional constituency among small farmers, Jadot said that the FN's environmental tilt was not an isolated example.
"Clearly, there is a trend," he said. "Five years ago most of the European extreme right parties were very different, but now they want to have power and be in governments so they have to widen their voting base."
"I would warn people that they have no legitimacy and they lack credibility. They pretend to defend a cause but have no solutions. They should not be considered environmentalists or part of any Green movement at all."
LOAD-DATE: December 18, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
24 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 18, 2014 Thursday 7:00 AM GMT
Remembering Mandela for climate action;
Announcing the forthcoming Madiba tribute album at the World Summit of the Nobel Peace Laureates
BYLINE: Lucia Grenna
SECTION: CONNECT4CLIMATE PARTNER ZONE
LENGTH: 620 words
It's hard to believe that the world has been without Nelson Mandela for more than a year. We remember him for his leadership, his wisdom and his ability to bring people together. His legacy inspires me to help advance the global movement for climate action.
After he left office in 1999, Nelson Mandela - or Madiba to all who knew him - founded a group called The Elders. The prestigious group - including former United States President Jimmy Carter and former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan - sought to create human rights-orientated solutions to complex, global problems. Among other issues, The Elders focused on tackling climate change, with a specific eye on those most affected by its impacts.
Connect4Climate is honored to salute the leadership of Nelson Mandela with a tribute we hope would have made him proud. Along with his fellow Nobel Peace Prize winners who have gathered in Rome this week for the 14th Annual World Summit of the Nobel Peace Laureates, we are announcing the Madiba Tribute Album to mark the occasion of his passing.
This great new collection of music features African musicians adding their own flair to well-known hits in exclusive remixes. (The album is being released at the beginning of the year, but here's a snippet of what to expect. Though, you may wonder, how can music help confront climate change?
Well, the album is a project lead by Artists Project Earth (APE), and this isn't APE's first go at this kind of collection, nor at this kind of mission. APE has released five other albums with hits from bands such as US, Coldplay, Eminem, Bob Dylan, Beyonce, and The Rolling Stones, and remixed them with vocals from artists from countries that suffer the most from climate change.
This is exactly why Connect4Climate partnered with the group that directs all its records' profits to specific, grassroots organisations that are doing their best to reverse climate change effects. With music we aim to motivate millennials to take on this generation's climate challenge. Music can inspire, can connect on an emotional level that climate science and data may never reach.
The albums have sold more than 1.5 million copies, and helped more than 330 projects, including Japanese tsunami victims, wetland conservation efforts in Uganda, coral reef restoration, and reforestation plans in Africa, Mexico and Honduras. Sales from Madiba Tribute Album will be divided between Mandela's Children's Fund and APE's climate change disaster relief programmes.
We first got to know APE through T-S-1, a rap group from Kibera in Nairobi, Kenya, who won our video competition for the 2011 Climate Change Conference in Durban. After their success, APE's founder, Kenny Young, persuaded T-S-1 to do a rendition of a song by American rap star Eminem.
American music producer/songwriter Kenny Young has long been familiar with a range of musical talent. He wrote top 10 hits in the 1960s and 1970s for artists that range from Herman's Hermits, to Quincy Jones and Nancy Sinatra, including his most famous tune Under the Boardwalk. His first foray with Rhythms Del Mundo came after the Indian Ocean tsunami hit in 2004 and devastated communities in Thailand. He is simply a huge believer in acting on climate change and puts his money where his heart is. APE is his brainchild.
Combine big-name artists with the talents of global musicians, connect with the youth around the world, and earmark the money for helping those who suffer the most. Nelson Mandela may be gone but his vision for tackling large global puzzles can still inspire creative solutions today.
Content managed and produced by Connect4Climate
LOAD-DATE: December 18, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
25 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 18, 2014 Thursday
Late Edition - Final
For Obama, More Audacity and Fulfillment of Languishing Promises
BYLINE: By MICHAEL D. SHEAR; Julie Hirschfeld Davis contributed reporting.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; NEWS ANALYSIS; Pg. 18
LENGTH: 1068 words
WASHINGTON -- President Obama's decision on Wednesday to radically shift United States policy toward Cuba is the latest and most striking example of a president unleashed from the hesitancy that characterized much of his first six years in office.
The announcement, made in a speech to the nation from the Cabinet Room of the White House, follows similar decisions by Mr. Obama in recent weeks to defy Republicans on immigration, climate change policy, the regulation of the Internet and negotiations with Iran.
Gone are the cautious political calculations that consigned contentious issues to secondary status and led some of the president's strongest allies to accuse him of abandoning his principles. Mr. Obama is now pushing forward aggressively on his promised agenda and ignoring his most ardent critics.
''He's going down a checklist of thorny, longstanding problems, and he's doing whatever he can to tackle them,'' said David Axelrod, a former senior adviser. ''These are things that have been tearing at us for decades and generations. My sense is his feeling is, 'I'm not going to leave office without doing everything I can to stop them.' ''
As a candidate in 2008, Mr. Obama was scorned by his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona, for his pledge to meet with Raúl Castro, the president of Cuba, ''at a time and place of my choosing.'' Mr. Obama said then that if Cuba took steps toward democracy and released all political prisoners, ''we will take steps to begin normalizing relations.''
But for six years, Mr. Obama made little progress on an issue fraught with political passions and uncertainty, especially in Florida, an important swing state. The only evidence of a change included a brief handshake with Mr. Castro at Nelson Mandela's funeral in South Africa last year and some minor revisions to the embargo against Cuba, easing travel restrictions and allowing Cuban-Americans to send more money home.
The president's lack of action angered activists who believed that he would follow through on his campaign promises. Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, collaborated on an op-ed article for the Miami Herald earlier this year that urged the president to change policy on Cuba and ''heed the majority of those across the country who recognize that we have much to gain by jettisoning this Cold War relic.''
On Wednesday, Mr. Obama finally made good on his pledge. ''When I came into office, I promised to re-examine our Cuba policy,'' the president said. ''I do not believe we can keep doing the same thing for over five decades and expect a different result.''
Mr. Obama's unilateral action on Cuba is part of a pattern that will define the end of his presidency. Frustrated by congressional inaction and Republican efforts to block legislation, the president has increasingly pushed the limits of his executive authority in domestic and international policy making -- an approach that anticipates, and largely dismisses, angry responses from his critics.
On Wednesday, those critics were out in force: Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida and a likely candidate for president in 2016, denounced the president's move as ''disgraceful'' and ''just another concession to a tyranny.'' Mr. Rubio and other Republicans threatened to withhold funding for a new American Embassy in Havana just as they had earlier threatened to undermine the president's immigration actions by trying to block federal money that might be needed to carry out the new policies.
Some Cuban-Americans in the president's party were equally angry. Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, said Mr. Obama had ''vindicated the brutal behavior of the Cuban government.'' Mr. Menendez, however, will become a less important White House ally once Republicans take control of the Senate next month and Mr. Menendez loses his position as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In the meantime, Mr. Obama is returning to the original case he made as a presidential candidate, casting himself as a transformational leader who is eager to discard old conventions of politics and policy in ways that appeal to the sensibilities of younger people. Although the midterm elections last month were a victory for Republicans, who took control of the Senate and added to their House majority, the results seem to have only accelerated the president's use of regulatory, diplomatic and executive authority.
Last month, Mr. Obama made a unilateral move on immigration, taking actions that will allow as many as five million unauthorized residents to work in the country legally without the threat of deportation. He had promised to do so as far back as 2007, during his first presidential campaign, vowing that if he were elected the issue would be ''a priority I will pursue from my very first day.''
The president has also stepped up his actions to combat climate change after failing to win congressional support for cap-and-trade legislation early in his presidency. This year, he negotiated a climate agreement with China, and he is pushing ahead with tough new regulations on coal-fired power plants.
Last month, Mr. Obama strongly endorsed equal treatment of websites by Internet service providers, angering some Republicans who oppose efforts to regulate providers as if they were public utilities. The president's decision to negotiate with Iran in recent years over its nuclear abilities -- against the strong objections of some conservatives -- followed through on one of his most contentious promises during the 2008 presidential campaign.
By framing his moves in generational terms, the president is also seeking to make an implicit case that Republicans who oppose them are dinosaurs fighting yesterday's battles.
Those close to Mr. Obama say he was always ready to fight those battles, but the realities of the presidency got in the way.
''When we got there, we had an epic economic crisis and two wars to deal with,'' Mr. Axelrod said. ''It wasn't as if he had the bandwidth or free rein to pursue every one of the issues he felt were important.''
Now, Mr. Axelrod said, the president will not be stopped.
''Either you buy into this tangled pathology of Washington and allow yourself to get maneuvered into inaction, or you resolve that you're going to use the authority that you have,'' Mr. Axelrod said. ''He's plainly going to use that.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/us/politics/cuba-action-is-obamas-latest-step-away-from-a-cautious-approach.html
LOAD-DATE: December 18, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: President Obama's decision to resume relations with Cuba fit a recent pattern of boldness. (PHOTOGRAPH BY DOUG MILLS/THE NEW YORK TIMES)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
26 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 17, 2014 Wednesday 10:12 PM GMT
Hu tieu, a Vietnamese dish spiced with prosperity and climate change;
The rice noodle soup, a specialty of the Mekong Delta, tells the tale of the changing economy and environment in the region. Is Vietnam becoming a victim of our appetites?
BYLINE: George Black
SECTION: VITAL SIGNS
LENGTH: 1643 words
On a visit last month to the town of My Tho, the capital of the Tien Giang province in Vietnam's Mekong Delta, I found a riverside restaurant that served the local specialty, a dish called hu tieu. It's a delicious soup, dense with stretchy rice noodles and topped with succulent locally farmed shrimp.
These two ingredients of hu tieu have set the delta on a remarkable path to prosperity. In provinces like Tien Giang and neighboring Ben Tre, as one drives east toward the South China Sea, the landscape is stitched together with fertile rice paddies and brackish ponds teeming with shrimp. This transformation has taken place in just one generation.
As late as 1990, 15 years after the Vietnam war ended, the country faced the threat of famine, and rice was strictly rationed. Now, thanks to the government's "rice first" policy, many farmers get three crops a year, including one in the dry season, from November to April. Earnings from this year's harvests have broken all previous records. Last year, Vietnam overtook Thailand as the world's leading rice exporter, with 90% of the export crop grown in the Mekong Delta.
Meanwhile, tempted by the big profits reaped from aquaculture over the past couple of decades, many other farmers have converted their rice fields into shrimp farms. In the villages of the delta, mud-and-thatch homes have given way to sturdy new buildings with cement walls and metal roofs - and even the occasional flashy mansion belonging to someone who has made a killing from shrimp.
While the biggest buyers of Vietnamese rice are other Asian countries, it's mainly American and European diners who drive the demand for shrimp, which earned Vietnam $4bn last year. Americans eat about 4lbs of shrimp a year per person, and last year the United States displaced Japan for the first time as Vietnam's biggest export market.
This drive for prosperity, and the wealth that comes from feeding foreign appetites, is at risk of becoming a victim of its own success. A growing number of scientists and economists say that without major changes in the way the land is used, the boom is unsustainable. And the brackish water in those shrimp ponds hints at the reason. The relentless pressure to earn more money and boost development is both intensified by climate change and worsening its impact.
The Mekong Delta is more vulnerable to encroaching oceans than almost any other agricultural region in the world. Climate change is already a palpable reality. "We're seeing more rain in the monsoon season, with worse flooding, and less in the dry season, with more severe droughts," said Dao Trong Tu, director of the Center for Sustainable Water Resources Development and Adaptation to Climate Change in Hanoi and formerly Vietnam's representative on the multinational Mekong River Commission.
In provinces such as Tien Giang and Ben Tre, he said, saltwater is steadily moving inland from the ocean, threatening the fertility of the soil. Bursts of extreme heat, meanwhile, are becoming longer and more intense. According to Ben Tre's provincial meteorological station, average temperatures have risen by 0.5C since 1977, when record keeping began.
The growing salinity of previously fertile rice-growing land is also a man-made problem, said Andrew Wyatt, Vietnam country representative of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and an expert on land use in the Ben Tre province.
In his office in Ho Chi Minh City, he projected a Google Earth image of the delta on a large screen, showing me the changes occurring along the coastal strip of Ben Tre. In some areas there was a green swath of mangrove forests hundreds of yards wide, a vital but tenuous buffer against storm surges from the South China Sea and the upstream flow of salt. But as he moved the cursor south, he pointed out many areas where huge areas of mangrove had thinned or vanished.
He paused at one point to zoom in closer on one section of the Soc Trang province. There was nothing left there but a fragmented ribbon of forest. On the landward side was an immense checkerboard of rectangular, industrial-scale shrimp ponds, the white spray from their aerators clearly visible in the satellite image."Originally it was rice that was pushing into these areas," Wyatt said, "but in more recent years it's been shrimp."
As farmers cut down the mangrove buffer to make way for aquaculture, storm surges and increasingly frequent typhoons can swamp the embankments that used to shield farm fields from saltwater. In some parts of the delta, the shoreline is now being pushed back by as much as 100 meters (109 yards) a year.
Canals, dikes and sluice gates, some of them dating back to the French colonial era, no longer keep saltwater out of the rice fields they were built to protect. "Those salinity control structures no longer work," he said. "The sluice gates have been opened permanently, and because they're no longer used, they've rusted in place."
It's no wonder so many farmers have switched to shrimp. Not only can shrimp thrive in saltier water - and farmers are increasingly introducing more salt-tolerant species, such as white-legged shrimp - but earnings from shrimp can be five or seven times higher than from a comparable acreage of rice, according to Ngo Thi Phuong Lam, an agriculture expert at Vietnam National University in Ho Chi Minh City. Despite the high start-up costs, the lure of quick profits continues to prove irresistible.
From an environmental point of view, all these developments have created a vicious cycle of pressures. Salinity threatens rice production. Strongly influenced by retailers and advertisers, farmers anxious to keep up their yields further sully freshwater supplies by applying profligate amounts of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. (Ho Van Chien of the Southern Regional Plant Protection Center in Tien Giang calls this "emotional buying.")
These practices are not only unsustainable; they also threaten export revenues. Contaminated rice has already provoked temporary import bans by China and Japan, and American rice growers are up in arms because of what they say is inadequate inspection of rice from Vietnam by the Food and Drug Administration.
The shrimp boom, meanwhile, produces its own cycle of threats. Intensive farming, especially of white-legged shrimp, leads to grossly overcrowded ponds; more waste excretion; increased risk of disease; heavier use of chemicals, feed, and antibiotics; and slipshod quality controls.
In 2013, disease swept through shrimp farms in several Asian countries, including Vietnam, and the resulting decline in production caused export prices to skyrocket. US restaurant chain Red Lobster reported a 35% increase in the price it was paying for imported shrimp. Although the disease itself isn't caused by climate change, Wyatt said, heat makes the shrimp more vulnerable to it. "Higher water temperatures stress the shrimp, and high temperature extremes have caused mass die-offs," he said.
The government is acutely aware of the threat of climate change and environmental degradation, said Dao Trong Tu, but the demand for development creates a huge conflict. One problem, he explained, is that the Delta's 13 provinces set their own economic targets - and furiously compete to attract new investment and boost exports, driving the growth of more rice and more shrimp. And all the time the oceans continue to inch steadily upward. With most of the Mekong Delta no more than five feet above sea level, as many as a million people are likely to lose their homes and their livelihoods by the middle of the century.
Can consumers help make the Vietnamese shrimp industry more sustainable? International organizations such as the Rainforest Alliance have made great headway in certifying sustainably grown and "fair trade" coffee. The Marine Stewardship Council has certified more than 20,000 seafood products as "fish to eat." Now the certification movement is turning its attention to aquaculture.
The Aquaculture Stewardship Council, which was created by WWF (formerly the World Wildlife Fund) and the Dutch Sustainable Trading Initiative, is now in the process of certifying its first Vietnamese shrimp farm, and a handful have already been certified by GlobalGap, a consortium of European retailers. Once shrimp with this stamp of approval start arriving in US and European markets, consumer awareness may begin to give added impetus to more sustainable forms of production in Vietnam.
When I got back to New York, I found a recipe for hu tieu and went down to the small section of Chinatown known as Little Saigon to shop for imported shrimp and the right kind of stretchy rice noodles. But I wondered, as I prepared the dish for my kids, whether I should serve it with a warning - that if one day they want to fix it for their own children, they may have a harder time finding the ingredients.
For many years the executive editor of OnEarth magazine, George Black has written extensively on climate change, energy policy, and the environment in Asia, Latin America and the United States. He is a frequent contributor to the newyorker.com.
This story was produced by the Food and Environment Reporting Network, an independent non-profit news organization focusing on food, agriculture and environmental health. Follow FERN on Twitter @FERNnews.
The Vital Signs platform is funded by Avery Dennison, Domtar and Chiquita. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled "brought to you by". Find out more here .
LOAD-DATE: December 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
27 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 17, 2014 Wednesday 8:03 PM GMT
How prepared is New York City for future superstorms? The question is far from settled;
To cap our Stormproofing the City series, Lilah Raptopoulos pinpoints eight takeaways - including that without Sandy, the city would be much less safe today
BYLINE: Lilah Raptopoulos
SECTION: US NEWS
LENGTH: 2140 words
Two years after Hurricane Sandy - New York's most devastating storm in a century - is the city any safer?
That was the question with which I began this series, Stormproofing the City - to find the answer, I interviewed the people employed to prepare our cities for future natural disasters.
Six interviews later, we have reached the series' end - but I cannot give you a simple "yes" or "no". Such a giant, multifaceted question demands more nuance than that. For instance, we may be safer from storms - but are we safe from heat waves? And we may have federal Sandy relief money to spend on resilience now - but what happens when that's money's gone? And is it even possible to fully stormproof a city?
So instead of a tidy bow, here are eight key takeaways from the series. By the end, you should have enough context to arrive at your own answer - be it "yes", "no", or "it's complicated".
1. If a storm exactly like Sandy hits New York tomorrow, the city should fare better...
Seven months after Sandy, then-mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration released a gargantuan plan called the Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency report, which outlined 257 projects that would protect us from future storms. Most are still in progress, but the quick fixes either are happening or are finished.
Con Edison is halfway through its storm-hardening plan to waterproof equipment and reinforce the power grid. Remember that 14th Street substation that exploded, leaving lower Manhattan blacked out for days? It's now surrounded by two massive cement walls.
Four big hospitals are just now getting FEMA relief for storm improvements, but many have already made small steps like moving their generators up from the basement. The US Army Corps of Engineers has replenished 3.5m cubic yards of sand along Rockaway Beach - and, as green building expert Russell Unger pointed out in our interview, residents are more willing to listen to emergency instructions. "If New Yorkers are told, 'We have a big hurricane coming, fill up your bathtubs,' people will now. That's improved."
2.... but the next natural disaster probably won't be a "Sandy-like storm"
Our natural human response after a crisis is to think in terms of what's already happened, but that's a very narrow lens.
A few weeks into the series, Samantha Montano used our call-out to experts to tell me just that. Montano is a PhD candidate in an emerging field called disaster science and management.
After a large disaster like Sandy, it's easy to become obsessed with implementing mitigation for another hurricane - just like after 9/11 we implemented things to combat terrorism. After disasters, we talk about there being a "window of opportunity" where we have the public, political and media attention about a hazard. Laws are reactively passed to mitigate. This window of opportunity is great, because things actually get done. But we have to be careful not to become so focussed on just one hazard that we forget about others.
One hazard we forget is heat, which kills more people than any other weather event. Unger asked whether New York residents could handle a power outage in a heatwave. "The elevator's not working, the air conditioning's broken, and the temperature reaches up to 90 during the day. How do you get an elderly person down from a skyscraper?"
3. Planning and paying for stormproofing takes a long, long time
A staggering $48b was appropriated by the US Congress for Sandy relief, but only a quarter of it has been spent. New York City's transit authority is just starting to receive federal funding to begin its slew of construction plans ; the winners of the massive design competition Rebuild by Design, funded by the Office of Housing and Urban Development (Hud), won't start building until after February. In both cases, these projects will take a few years to finish.
In my first interview, scientist and climate expert Klaus Jacob asked a fair question: "The MTA is just getting their money now. What took almost two years to write a check?" The answer seems to be planning.
As Hud's Holly Leicht explained, most federal agencies have strict spending deadlines for relief money: "The city doesn't want it all at once, because once they have it, that clock starts. They need to be ready to spend it."
Before MTA facilities and infrastructure manager John O'Grady's team was ready, for instance, it had to research transit stormproofing methods globally, and then design entirely new tools for New York.
Even building code upgrades take time. An important drinking water law approved by the city council won't be enforced until 2022. Why? "Many [building owners] have fixed budgets, and some have very little means," Unger told me. "Time gives the buildings flexibility to implement new measures in the least disruptive and costly manner possible."
Unless this is all a rosy veil for bureaucratic inefficiency, taking the time to ensure this money is spent smartly seems to be a better idea than the numbers make it seem.
4. You can't fully stormproof any city
Some people I spoke with actually considered "stormproofing" a dangerous term, because it suggests the goal is reachable, even if it is used simply to refer to the ongoing act of preparing a city for natural disasters. A more accurate term is "mitigating risk" - taking measures that will lessen the damage and loss of life in future events.
"You're not going to prevent the next Sandy," said the Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance's Roland Lewis, "but you can lessen its impact."
5. We may still be thinking too short-term
Klaus Jacob, the scientist, was adamant that some of the city's projects may cause problems for the future. For example, Rebuild's most expensive project, the Big U, a 10-mile protective system of sloping landscapes along lower Manhattan's waterfront, has a fixed height. "As the sea level rises, you need ever smaller storms to overcome it," he said. "What about the 2080s? 2100? You just postpone the problem for future generations."
Nothing lasts forever. Will this ultimately hurt us? I asked Henk Ovink, Rebuild by Design's principal, senior advisor to Hud during the competition, and one of the Netherlands' foremost water experts, to respond. To him, the answer seemed to be no - this work helps by broadening how people think about resilience, as more flexible than rigid seawalls.
Klaus is right that we need to look at resiliency planning from a long-term perspective. As I've always said, there is no silver bullet for climate change. The Big U is being built to protect against 100-year floods and sea level rise, and answers our urgent need to protect people in the here and now. But more fundamentally, all of these projects help us become more adaptive and flexible as a society. Designing resilience, while it definitely must involve the best science, requires infrastructure that strengthens our physical and social realities together.
6. We wouldn't be this far along if Sandy hadn't happened
This storm launched a flood of $20b in federal aid that New York City otherwise would not have had. The aid was allotted specifically to rebuild, but a significant portion is being spent on mitigating risk for the future. Without it, there would be no money or incentive to create Rebuild by Design, or the recently invented tools that will floodproof our subway systems. Without the storm, there would be no panic-induced task force that ultimately - finally - upgraded the city's building codes. It took a systemic failure in the face of disaster to get on some semblance of a track.
This makes me worry about cities that haven't had a recent natural disaster - they're at risk too, but may have fewer resources than cities that have recently suffered. Why does it have to take disasters to beget change?
7. Some private interests may be undermining these resilience goals
In the series' first week, an environmental lawyer named Deborah Carlson wrote in to suggest we try to answer this solution-based question: "What will persuade real estate developers to engage with what is needed for longer-term resilience, given their generally short-term bottom line calculations? How do we make it valuable for them?"
This question matters because in many of my interviews, the private financial incentives of New York's real estate developers have been mentioned - their interests seem to be among the most in conflict with best practices for climate change. You may remember the multibillion-dollar plan called Seaport City, under which a luxury housing complex would be built near South Street Seaport in lower Manhattan to protect the neighborhood behind it. To do it, developers would fill in up to 66 acres of the East River's coast to build high rises, quite literally, in the water.
Building on the water? Aren't sea levels rising?
The city hired a firm called Arcadis to conduct a feasibility study, which concluded the plan would be difficult to zone and get approved, but could be done. It suggested the development could pay for itself and then some - but also noted significant adverse impacts it would have on the river.
This proposal offended Jacob, the scientist best known for predicting Sandy's effect on New York City: "The real estate sector is extraordinarily influential in this city. The mayor's office tends to be more or less beholden to it. What I'm saying goes against what they've been preaching for 30 years: that a waterfront apartment is a good investment."
It also concerned Lewis, who runs the city's waterfront alliance: "I think this was just as much a real estate proposal as a protection proposal... The study didn't call it by any stretch an economic or ecological slam dunk. The amount of revenue they'd create is questionable, and the time frame [10 years to fully implement] is horrendous."
I was allowed just a 15-minute phone call with Dan Zarrilli, director of the mayor's Office of Recovery and Resiliency, during which I asked him about Seaport City. He seemed to disagree.
"I have to say, it's pretty absurd to say we're beholden to any one particular industry here in the mayor's office," he said. "We need to [do] something big and bold to reduce the risk of coastal flooding in a part of the city that has a large vulnerable population, important transportation links and economic activity [in the financial district] that's paramount. This is also unique in that it's finding a way to pay for itself - and not just with luxury housing, the way some people claim. If you read through the feasibility study, I think you see that. We think this is a wise investment that can buy down risk, and we're engaging with the community on what it will look like. We're going to continue to advance that."
Verdict? Inconclusive, but worth keeping a critical eye on.
8. Once the Sandy relief money is spent, the city may not be able to keep stormproofing at this rate
Lewis asked an important question when we spoke: "This is a multidecade movement. Where specifically is the money and political will necessary to actually reshape huge parts of our city?"
Leicht acknowledged that it's not entirely clear how, say, the second and third stages of these Rebuild projects will be paid for, but expressed hope. She mentioned a new federal interagency framework that let her colleagues coordinate on resilience. She also made clear that the US Army Corps of Engineers are "really the long-term players in this", and that gives her hope. (They operate independently of Sandy and request further storm protection money from Congress after everyone else leaves.)
But in a followup call, Lewis remained skeptical. "It took a disaster to get us this far," he said. "The Army Corps are doing important work and are able to operate under their own rules, but ultimately there's only so much they can do without congressional funding. Who's to say they will be allocated the money they request? It may take another disaster to get us further."
Does this mean we need more storms to get more money to keep stormproofing? It's likely.
A final note
I hope this series has unlocked this sprawling system for you, and brought light to the more nuanced questions inside the sweeping one of whether we are safe. There is a big, mostly well-intentioned network out there making our city more resilient in the face of future storms. But keep an eye on the moving parts: although Sandy is long gone, there is a lot of work still ahead.
Stormproofing the City series directory
Series index
The starting guide
Climate change and urban planning expert Klaus Jacob
Waterfront expert Roland Lewis
Urban green building expert Russell Unger
MTA infrastructure and facilities manager John O'Grady
Rockefeller Foundation managing director Nancy Kete
Hud regional administrator for New York and New Jersey Holly Leicht
LOAD-DATE: December 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
28 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 17, 2014 Wednesday 2:00 PM GMT
2014 will be the hottest year on record;
According to data from NOAA, 2014 is sure to set a new temperature record
BYLINE: John Abraham
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 581 words
For those of us fixated on whether 2014 will be the hottest year on record, the results are in. At least, we know enough that we can make the call. According the global data from NOAA, 2014 will be the hottest year ever recorded.
I can make this pronouncement even before the end of the year because each month, I collect daily global average temperatures. So far, December is running about 0.5°C above the average. The climate and weather models predict that the next week will be about 0.75°C above average. This means, December will come in around 0.6°C above average. Are these daily values accurate? Well the last two months they have been within 0.05°C of the final official results.
What does this all mean? Well, when I combine December with the year-to-date as officially reported, I predict the annual temperature anomaly will be 0.674°C. This beats the prior record by 0.024°C. That is a big margin in terms of global temperatures.
For those of us who are not fixated on whether any individual year is a record but are more concerned with trends, this year is still important. Particularly because according to those who deny the basic physics and our understanding of climate change, this year wasn't supposed to be particularly warm.
For those who thought that climate change was "natural" and driven by ocean currents, this has been a tough year. For instance, using NOAA standards, this year didn't even have an El Niño. NOAA defines an El Niño as 5 continuous/overlapping 3-month time periods wherein a particular region in the Pacific has temperatures elevated more than 0.5 oC.
Interestingly, we are currently close to an El Niño, and if current patterns continue for a few weeks, an official El Niño will be announced. But it hasn't been yet, and if we do get an El Niño, it will affect next year more than this year. How could the hottest year have occurred then, when the cards are not stacked in its favor? The obvious and correct answer is, because of continued emission of greenhouse gases.
As I write this post, I am attending one of the premier earth sciences conference, the Fall AGU Conference which is held each December in San Francisco. Thousands of scientists, including a large number of climate scientists are meeting, presenting, and sharing the latest research about our planet.
Here, among the experts, there is little fixation on the record. On the other hand, there was little fixation on the so-called "halt" to global warming that the climate-science deniers have been trumpeting for the past few years. The latest data paint a clear picture. The Earth is warming. The oceans are warming, the land is warming, the atmosphere is warming, the ice is melting, and sea level is rising.
These climate science deniers have had a bad year. It has been shown that in many cases, their science is in error and their understanding of the Earth's climate faulty. This record temperature, according to NOAA, has made their life even more difficult. The so-called "halt" to global warming was never true in the first place, as I wrote recently. But now, a claim that global warming has stopped cannot be made with a straight face.
Of course, the science deniers will look for something new to try to cast doubt on the concept of global warming. Whatever they pick will be shown to be wrong. It always is. But perhaps we can use 2014 as a learning opportunity. Let's hope no one is fooled next time when fanciful claims of the demise of climate change are made.
LOAD-DATE: December 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
29 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 17, 2014 Wednesday 5:00 AM GMT
Europe's record hot year made at least 35 times more likely by climate change, say scientists;
2014 is set to be Europe's warmest year on record and greenhouse gas emissions played a major role new research shows
BYLINE: Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 589 words
This year is on track to be the warmest ever recorded in Europe, and greenhouse gas emissions played a major role, according to new research. Scientists have analysed centuries of temperature records to conclude that this year's warmth was made at least 35 times more likely because of climate change.
In the UK, this year's weather included an unusually warm beginning to autumn, with hot sunny days continuing into late October. A team of researchers at Oxford found that the odds of such a warm year in this country had increased by a factor of 10.
Scientists from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), the University of Melbourne and the Australian National University found that the likelihood of such warm temperatures across Europe was 35 to 80 times greater because of climate change.
Myles Allen, professor at Oxford University, told the Guardian that his group was working on much smaller areas than the other researchers, and was still able to detect a clear signal of climate change. "We are using regional climate models to zoom in on smaller areas than the other groups, and it is interesting that even on the scale of the UK, we are seeing a substantial impact of human influence on climate on the odds of such a warm year," he said.
The new work, which has yet to be peer-reviewed or published in full, adds to the increasing science of global warming attribution. While the science of global warming has been understood for many years - the comprehensive 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) set out the certainty that climate change was occurring and caused in the main by human activity - it has always been difficult to tie specific events, such as heatwaves, storms or floods, to climate change. That is because such events also happen naturally, though less frequently than they would under a warming climate.
Ongoing work by teams of researchers around the world, including the Met Office and Oxford University in the UK, is changing that, enabling specific weather events or trends to be linked to global warming on a probability scale.
Previous research has shown, for instance, that the record warm November of 2011 was at least 60 times more likely to have happened because of climate change, according to the Met Office.
Global efforts to combat climate change are continuing. Last week, governments meeting at the UN's annual climate change conference, held in Lima, agreed a framework for curbing the growth in greenhouse gas emissions, prior to a new global climate agreement that is supposed to be signed at another major conference next year in Paris.
There are encouraging signs that emissions may be moderating at the global level. Last year, global greenhouse gas emissions increased at a slower rate than the average of the past decade. Carbon output was 2% higher than the previous year, which is much lower than the average of 3.8% a year that has been normal since 2003, if the short-lived effects of the financial crisis on emissions are stripped out, according to data from the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
A slowdown in the pace of China's economic growth was to some extent responsible, along with increasing use of renewable energy. But amidst the decrease in emissions growth, there have been opposing signs: in the US, where the shale gas boom has driven down carbon emissions for several years, a swing back to coal - as gas prices have risen - pushed up emissions growth to 2.5% in 2013. Europe's greenhouse gases fell by 1.4%.
LOAD-DATE: December 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
30 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 17, 2014 Wednesday 3:29 AM GMT
Climate change: global pressure will make Australia do more, says Cameron;
British PM tells committee of MPs Australia does not want to be a 'back marker' on the issue and is clearly affected by climate change
BYLINE: Ben Quinn
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 360 words
Global pressure will force Australia to do more on climate change, Britain's prime minister, David Cameron, has predicted.
Cameron told a committee of British MPs in London he sensed the Australian government recognised it did not want to be the international "back marker" on the issue.
"Look, it's a sovereign country. It has to make its own decisions. There has obviously been a very big debate in Australia about carbon taxes and prices and all the rest of it," Cameron said as he gave evidence to a House of Commons committee.
"But my sense is that they recognise they don't want to be the back marker - nor should they. It's a great country. It's clearly affected by climate change and I believe they will do more."
A Liberal Democrat MP, Malcolm Bruce, responded by telling the prime minister the US used to be the "back marker" on climate change policy, but "the truth is that Australia is the back marker at the moment".
Cameron replied: "I don't think they will want to be and I think they will feel pressure and want to do more."
"We should try to encourage them to do it in their own way rather than say there is some pre-ordained route they have to follow."
He said the US had managed to cut its carbon emissions thanks to the "unexpected bonus" of the "shale revolution" - widely known as fracking - which meant it was burning less coal.
"That's enabled [Barack Obama] to, I think, make some quite interesting commitments on climate change which is being delivered through all sorts of executive motions rather than Congress," Cameron said.
Bruce earlier quoted a European Union official who described the G20 climate discussions in Brisbane last month as "trench warfare".
Cameron had joined calls at the G20 for Tony Abbott to do more on climate change, saying "countries that have so far done the least have to think about what more they can do".
Obama had dramatically forced climate onto the summit agenda - against the wishes of Australia - with a hard-hitting speech urging the world to rally behind a new global agreement, pledging $3bn to the Green Climate Fund and pointing out that countries such as Australia had the most to lose from global warming.
LOAD-DATE: December 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
31 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 16, 2014 Tuesday 8:32 PM GMT
Jeb Bush may be 'the smart brother' - but he's as much of a climate denier as any conservative;
The first Republican presidential candidate for 2016 is 'not a scientist' - and you can bet Democrats won't back off the environmentJeb Bush says he is 'actively exploring' run for presidency in 2016Gustavo Arellano: Jeb Bush is not the white knight Latinos have been waiting forMegan Carpentier: Elizabeth Warren wouldn't even beat Jeb BushPlus: Meet the Republicans who don't believe climate change is real
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
SECTION: COMMENT IS FREE
LENGTH: 890 words
In Bush family lore, Jeb was always supposed to be the smarter, more level-headed one.
As with many media constructs, of course, that's just not true. When it comes to climate change, Jeb Bush is a lot more radical than his brother.
Jeb doesn't just want to keep burning fossil fuels while the planet burns. He's an out-and-out flat-earther - just like the other Republicans seen as leading contenders in the 2016 presidential race - and he's been on the record denying climate science for years.
"I think global warming may be real," Jeb Bush said in 2011, in what seemed like a promising start to the subject in a Fox interview. But he followed it up with the false statement that there is some kind of dispute among scientists about the causes of climate change - which there is not:
It is not unanimous among scientists that it is disproportionately manmade. What I get a little tired of on the left is this idea that somehow science has decided all this so you can't have a view.
Those comments put Jeb Bush in lock-step with the other climate deniers in the Republican party - and now that he has become the party's first (almost) declared candidate, they should help set early battle lines for climate change as a major campaign issue.
Democrats say they are convinced climate change can be a winning issue - or at least a convenient form of political shorthand for defining even the least conservative GOP candidates as extreme, anti-science or just plain old.
Now we'll get a first look at how the other other Bush chooses to define himself. But there are clear signs Jeb Bush feels most comfortable in the dubious territory between denial and doubt.
In 2009, Jeb was even an early adopter of the "I am not a scientist" line - which gained traction among some Republicans this year as a way of ducking the denier label. It's hard to see how those extreme views on climate will go down with corporations - and potential donors - that have been distancing themselves from outright denier positions, such as those promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Among Republican primary voters, however, climate denial still holds sway.
Reports do surface now and then of an underground cell among Republicans who do accept the science of climate change. But Jeb Bush, for now, clearly wants no part of that.
Brother George - or 43, as he is apparently known at family get-togthers - never went as far as outright climate denial, but he was certainly no friend of the environmental movement. As president, 43 had a Texas oil man's approach to global warming. He pulled the US out of the Kyoto protocol, let oil companies dictate energy policy, and installed other oil men in environmental posts who censored government scientists' warnings about climate change.
But George W Bush did make a half-hearted pitch for renewable energy - dropping a mention of switch grass into his 2006 State of the Union address - and he declared what was then the world's largest marine reserve on his way out of the White House. And on climate change (as opposed to stem cell research and the morning after pill), 43 did not go out of his way to try to undermine science.
Related: Resist the Jeb Bush the media wants to sell you for 2016. It's a Jeb of lies | Jeb Lund
That was certainly a kinder, gentler time for Republicans. Back in the day, even John McCain, Barack Obama's opponent in the 2008 presidential race, supported curbs on greenhouse gas emissions.
But over the last five years, climate change has turned into a big floating iceberg of an issue for presidential politics - a defining line between Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats' initial response to that was to duck and run. Obama barely mentioned climate change in his first term or in his 2012 re-election campaign.
Then the green billionaire mega-donor Tom Steyer began backing climate-friendly candidates, though he didn't have a lot to show after spending $74m on pro-climate candidates in the midterm elections.
But 2016 promises to be different. By the time the primary campaigns heat up, Obama will be winding down his presidency - the greatest legacy of which may be his decision to defy Congress and use government agencies to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change.
Republicans, under the incoming majority leader Mitch McConnell, will have spent nearly two years trying to block those efforts. International negotiators from more than 190 countries will have gathered in Paris to try to put together a global climate deal. And Jeb Bush will be just another stumbling, mumbling Republican candidate for president who is not a scientist, doesn't want to listen to scientists, and may spend as much time undoing years of progress on the environment as the GOP will have spent trying to undo Obama's healthcare law.
At a League of Conservation Voters dinner in New York earlier this month, Hillary Clinton said she would defend climate rules. "The unprecedented action that President Obama has taken must be defended at all costs," she said.
Now with Jeb Bush's declaration, we know where the likely Republican frontrunner stands, too: on the wrong side. He's on the wrong side of those climate rules, and on the wrong side of reality. If things go according to the Democratic plan, that could put him on the wrong side of history, too.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
32 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 16, 2014 Tuesday 5:48 PM GMT
Cameron questioned by MPs about climate change and radicalistion: Politics Live blog;
Rolling coverage of all the day's political developments as they happen, including William Hague publishing plans for English votes for English laws (Evel) and David Cameron giving evidence to the liaison committee about climate change and radicaliationLunchtime summary4 English votes for English law options - SummaryEnglish votes for English laws - Summary and analysis
BYLINE: Andrew Sparrow
SECTION: POLITICS
LENGTH: 9935 words
block-time published-time 5.48pm GMT
Cameron at the liaison committee - Summary
Cameron says that a Sydney-style terrorist attack could happen in Britain "at any moment". This is what he said when Keith Vaz asked him how close Britain was to that kind of attack.
The threat we face definitely includes those sort of self-starting, sometimes quite random attacks that could happen at any moment in Britain. We've seen, over the last few months, there have been a series of plots that have been detected and prevented that would have seen police officers, or other authority figures, murdered in cold blood, as Lee Rigby was murdered in cold blood. It is thanks to the brilliance of our policing and security services that these things have been prevented.
We can't count on them to prevent it every time because it is one thing understanding the terror networks coming out of Pakistan or Afghanistan or Iraq and Syria, trying to monitor what they're doing, who's going and who's returning. That's one thing. But people who are self-radicalised on the internet, who then suddenly do appalling things, that is much more difficult to prevent.
He said the government had not done enough to challenge the narrative that draws people towards extremism. This is what he told Vaz .
If you are saying we are not doing enough to challenge the underlying narrative that has been the starting point for some people to be seduced from a moderate Islam approach to something that accepts the narrative of the extremists, I agree with you.
He said he was opposed to any more onshore windfarms. Confirming that the Tories would scrap subsidies for onshore windfarms after 2015, he said the public were "fed up" with them and that he did not expect any more to be erected without subsidy.
On onshore windfarms, I think the public are, frankly, fed up with so many windfarms being built that won't be necessary. Now we've reached some 10% of our electricity by onshore wind, we don't need to have more of these subsidised onshore. So let's get rid of the subsidy, put them into the planning system and, if they can make their case, they can make their case. I suspect they won't. And we'll have a reasonable amount of onshore wind, we will have safer electricity supplies as a result, but enough is enough. I'm very clear about that.
That's all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
block-time published-time 5.29pm GMT
Cameron says Cobra, the emergency committee, takes advice from scientists.
But it does not simply do what they say. There is a need for politicians to take political decisions beyond that, he says.
And that's it.
I'll post a summary shortly.
block-time published-time 5.26pm GMT
David Cameron says world did not respond quickly enough to Ebola outbreak and says "World Health Organisation does not function very well".
- Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) December 16, 2014
block-time published-time 5.19pm GMT
Q: What would you do if another country, like Pakistan, refused to take back someone considered a threat?
Cameron says the prisons are full of people he would like to return to their home country. So he believes in being "pretty tough" on this.
block-time published-time 5.18pm GMT
Keith Vaz goes next.
Q: The Sunday Times recently reported that passports were removed from 22 people, the entire family of someone suspected of terrorism involvement abroad. Is that the kind of thing the government will be doing?
Cameron says he does not know the details of this case. But he has confidence in what Theresa May is doing.
The police need a suite of powers to keep us safe, he says.
block-time published-time 5.16pm GMT
Sir Alan Beith, the chair of the justice committee, is asking questions now.
Q: Are we able to recruit enough Imams to serve in jails, to counter extremism there?
Cameron says his understanding is that they are.
block-time published-time 5.15pm GMT
Cameron says UK has done five times as much bombing of IS in Iraq as France
- James Tapsfield (@JamesTapsfield) December 16, 2014
block-time published-time 5.14pm GMT
This hearing has been shown on C-SPAN in the US.
British Liaison Committee w/ British PM @David_Cameron on Climate Change - LIVE on C-SPAN http://t.co/nkjZ33k3PBpic.twitter.com/myN1IohBmD
- CSPAN (@cspan) December 16, 2014
At the moment @JonelleHenry of @cspan is giving better coverage of @David_Cameron at the Liaison Committee than any UK counterpart.
- Mark Fox (@MarkFoxNews) December 16, 2014
block-time published-time 5.12pm GMT
Rory Stewart, the Conservative chair of the defence committee, goes next.
Q: To what extent is destroying Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq and Syria a priority?
It is a priority, he says. This is a terrorist body that runs a state, has weapons and has land.
We will not deal with the problem of tackling the terrorist narrative unless we fight Isis, he says.
block-time published-time 5.10pm GMT
Cameron says the new government bill saying public bodies have a duty to combat extremism will make a big difference.
block-time published-time 5.09pm GMT
Vaz turns to the dark internet.
Q; Shouldn't you set up something like the Internet Watch Foundation, to allow people to report dark internet sites?
Cameron says the internet companies have become much better at dealing with child abuse images. They have blocked 10,000 search terms, and Google searches related to abuse have gone down 80%.
They have been slower at dealing with terrorist material on the web, he says.
block-time published-time 5.07pm GMT
Q: We don't seem to have stopped people becoming radicalised.
Cameron says he agrees that the government has not been able to counter the extremism narrative.
But a lot has been done, he says.
We need everyone to rise up and say this is not acceptable, he says. When he makes this point, he is not getting at Muslims.
Q: I represent 15,000 Muslims. The problem is caused by a tiny minority.
Cameron says it is a minority of a minority of a minority.
Q: What is your message to people like the mother of Yusuf Sarwar, who cooperated with police when her son went to fight in Syria and then saw him sentenced to 12 years.
Cameron says he was not in the court room, so he cannot comment on all the evidence.
We have to allow the police and the prosecution service to work, he says.
block-time published-time 5.02pm GMT
Keith Vaz, the Labour chair of the home affairs committee, is asking the questions now.
Q: How important is this in your overall priorities?
Cameron says his twin priorities are economic security and national security. This is part of national security.
If you go back and look at his old speeches, the need to challenge extremism is an issue he has always raised.
Q: How close are we to a Sydney-style attack?
Cameron says the threat we face definitely includes the possibility of a random attack from a self-starter.
Plots to attack police officers have been thwarted, he says.
It is hard to prevent attacks from people who have been "self-radicalised".
block-time published-time 4.58pm GMT
Cameron says he set up an extremism task force.
He likes bringing ministers together to work on a subject, he says.
Of all the things he's done, he thinks this has been moderately successful.
block-time published-time 4.57pm GMT
The energy section of the hearing is over. Now the committee is tacking radicalisation.
block-time published-time 4.57pm GMT
Cameron says it is only when communities see other communities benefit from fracking that they will come round to supporting the idea.
block-time published-time 4.55pm GMT
David TC Davies, the Conservative chair of the Welsh affairs committee, is asking the questions now.
Q: Would fracking be allowed in national parks?
Only in exceptional circumstances, he says. But he says the government has not said what those might be.
He says he understands how concerned people are about fracking. That will only change when they see what it is like when it actually happens.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.56pm GMT
block-time published-time 4.51pm GMT
Cameron says the green groups do not want to hear anything good about shale gas.
block-time published-time 4.50pm GMT
Cameron says the shale gas industry has already committed that every site will have an environmental impact assessment.
block-time published-time 4.50pm GMT
Cameron says some of the green groups are opposed to shale gas because it is gas. They cannot bear the fact that it is a carbon fuel. They oppose it with a religiosity that is just wrong.
Cameron "I find some green groups are opposed to shale gas with a religiosity that is wrong. They cannot bear another carbon based source".
- Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) December 16, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.52pm GMT
block-time published-time 4.48pm GMT
Cameron says one fracking well uses less water in its lifetime than a golf course uses in a month.
"Interesting fact," he says.
block-time published-time 4.47pm GMT
Q: You are asking the public to take a lot on trust. Why was the shale gas report published by Defra so heavily redacted?
Cameron says he will look at that.
Going back to McIntosh's question about self-monitoring of seismic activity, he says this does happen. But companies lose their permits if they do not report activity.
This is not an industry subject to under-regulation, he says.
block-time published-time 4.44pm GMT
Anne McIntosh, the Conservative chair of the environment committee, goes next.
Q: Will you put an end to the self-monitoring of fracking companies?
What do you mean.
McIntosh mentions a fracking company that carried on fracking after a minor earthquake.
Cameron says he thinks a robust system is in place already.
We need a sensible debate, he says.
When he looks at some of the emails.... Cameron tails off, but he implies that people raise unreasonable fears.
We need more myth-busting, he says.
block-time published-time 4.41pm GMT
David Cameron says he expects Australia will want to do more on climate change and will not want to be "the back marker".
- Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) December 16, 2014
block-time published-time 4.40pm GMT
Andrew Miller, the Labour chair of the science committee, says many of his constituents work for high-energy firms. But the government also wants to cut energy use.
Q: Do you agree that science is not finished until it is communicated?
Yes, says Cameron. He says he tells scientists he values the work they do. They are good at busting myths.
Cameron tells MPs he wants to end myths eg "fracking would be a disaster for the environment" or that GM leads to "fish-flavoured tomatoes".
- Jim Pickard (@PickardJE) December 16, 2014
But they should communicated these messages, because they are trusted more than politicians, Cameron says.
Cameron says he believes in cutting carbon at the lowest cost.
There have been disagreements in the coalition, but not huge ones.
The public is fed up with onshore wind farms, he says. He wants to cut their subsidy. Enough is enough, he says.
David Cameron: "The public are fed up with so many wind farms on-shore. Enough is enough and I am very clear about that".
- Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) December 16, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.45pm GMT
block-time published-time 4.34pm GMT
Sir Malcolm Bruce, the Lib Dem chair of the international development committee, is asking the questions.
Q: Why is the £720m for the Green Development Fund coming from the aid budget? That's not new money, because it's from the aid budget.
Cameron says it is money that wasn't in the Green Development Fund but is now.
block-time published-time 4.31pm GMT
Cameron says there is an argument in the aid world as to whether you should help the poorest people, or the poorest countries.
He favours helping the poorest people in the poorest countries.
block-time published-time 4.28pm GMT
Cameron says the Green Investment Bank should be the "first investor".
There are plenty of other investors, like pension funds, also keen to invest in energy.
block-time published-time 4.25pm GMT
Adrian Bailey, the Labour chair of the business committee, goes next.
Cameron says he recently asked energy investors if Britain was a good place to invest, and if it offered long-term security. They said it was a good place to invest, he says.
The Green Investment Bank has plenty more spending to do.
Q: The problem seems to be that it is not spending enough.
Cameron says it has spent £1.6bn of the £3.8bn available.
Energy companies are very positive about investing in the UK.
block-time published-time 4.22pm GMT
Cameron says renewables in the pipeline will generate 10 per cent of UK energy: "Frankly I think that is enough for reasons of balance."
- Jim Pickard (@PickardJE) December 16, 2014
block-time published-time 4.22pm GMT
Cameron says the government is not subsidising fracking with a guaranteed price per hour.
It is a nascent industry. What the government is doing is giving it a tax break to help it get going.
The way you tax a new industry is different from the way you tax an existing industry, he says.
block-time published-time 4.18pm GMT
Joan Walley, the Labour chair of the environmental audit committee, is asking the questions.
Q: Don't you accept that new nuclear power stations are being subsidised by the government?
No, he does not accept that, Cameron says.
The government wants to cut carbon emissions, but also to have a secure energy supply.
As part of that, it is right to have the regeneration of the British nuclear industry.
Without that, and without oil and gas, we would be in real trouble. The sun does not shine enough in this country, he says.
He says any subsidy is offered through a guaranteed price. But the price guaranteed for nuclear power is higher than the price guaranteed for wind power.
block-time published-time 4.15pm GMT
Cameron says the North Sea is a valuable industry for the UK. He hopes that carbon capture and storage will come about, so he hopes that gas will play a part in energy production for a long time.
Without gas, the country would have to rely on subsidised renewable energy and very expensive nuclear power.
block-time published-time 4.12pm GMT
David Cameron at the liaison committee Photograph: Parliament TV
Cameron started his evidence by paying tribute to those killed in the attacks in Australia and Pakistan.
@David_Cameron begins session at Liaison Cttee paying tribute to those caught up in events in Australia and Pakistan
- BBC Parliament/DL (@bbcdemlive) December 16, 2014
"There is no belief system in the world that can justify" #pesharwarattack says David Cameron
- norman smith (@BBCNormanS) December 16, 2014
David Cameron says west now engaged in "struggle of our generation" following #pesharwarattack
- norman smith (@BBCNormanS) December 16, 2014
"The scale of what has happened in Pakistan simply defies belief, it's a dark dark day for humanity" David Cameron tells MPs
- Emily Ashton (@elashton) December 16, 2014
block-time published-time 4.05pm GMT
Tim Yeo, chair of the energy committee, goes first.
Q: Do you expect to continue with the carbon budget process?
Yes, says Cameron. A new decision is due by 2016.
But, he says, his only reservation is about keeping costs down. He does not know yet what new technology will become available.
block-time published-time 4.02pm GMT
You can watch the hearing here.
block-time published-time 4.01pm GMT
David Cameron at the liaison committee
David Cameron is about to give evidence to the Commons liaison committee.
According to the committee, these are the issues due to come up.
Climate Change and new energy sources and technologies
The issues likely to be raised include:
· National carbon budgets and pricing
· Energy subsidies
· Green investment bank powers, the Green Deal, and policy co-ordination and stability
· The International Climate Fund and the Green Climate Fund
· Communication of climate science and risk
· Exploiting shale gas and fracking
· Local employment and skills
· Exploration and assumptions
· The impact on the landscape.
Radicalisation
The issues likely to be raised include:
· The Prime Minister's Task Force on tackling radicalisation and extremism
· The Prevent Strategy and the Channel programme
· Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures
· Extremism in schools
· Foreign Fighters
· Radicalisation in Prisons
· Temporary exclusion from the United Kingdom
block-time published-time 3.54pm GMT
English votes for English laws - Summary and analysis
William Hague, the leader of the Commons, has published a short command paper backing the principle of English votes for English laws (Evel) but revealing how little agreement there is within government about how it should happen. The paper only runs to 33 pages, and almost half of it relates to devolution measures already taken by the government that do not relate to Commons voting procedures. The paper proposes four Evel options (see 1.29pm), three Tory ones and one Lib Dem one, but does not say which David Cameron prefers. Hague has said that he wants a debate and vote on this next year, but he gave no indication today what MPs would actually vote on.
The Conservatives have marginally firmed up their commitment to Evel. All three options would effectively give English MPs a veto over English-only legislation. (One is just described as giving English MPs "the decisive say", but the difference between having a veto and having the decisive say is not clear). Previously one option has been the approach set out last year in the report from the McKay Commission. The commission floated several options, all of which involved English MPs voting on English-only matters, but the House of Commons as a whole having the last word. This approach was intended to encourage compromise where English MPs and the Commons as a whole disagreed. But Hague said all three Conservative options were "stronger and more binding" that what McKay proposed.
Conservative MPs have warmly welcomed the principle of English votes for English laws. But, during Hague's statement in the Commons, most of the Tory MPs who spoke out in support did not say which of the three Conservative versions of Evel they supported. It is not at all clear which of the options would attract most support in a Commons vote.
Sadiq Khan, the shadow justice secretary, has reaffirmed Labour's support for a modest version of the McKay plan. But he also accused Hague of a stitch up.
Constitutional experts have urged the government to proceed cautiously.
David Jones, the Conservative former Welsh secretary, has expressed concerns about the impact of Evel on Wales. He said it would be "wholly wrong" to stop Welsh MPs voting on English matters that concerned them. Many people in Wales were heavily reliant on English services, he said. Addressing Hague he said:
Would you agree with me it would be wrong to equate the positions of Wales and Scotland? Do you as a former secretary of state for Wales himself acknowledge that large numbers of people in Wales are heavily reliant on services delivered in England and therefore it would be wholly wrong if the representatives of those people were to be denied a voice on issues which so clearly concern them?
Hague conceded this was an issue. He said it was addressed in the command paper.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 3.56pm GMT
block-time published-time 3.27pm GMT
Michael Kenny at the Staggers says Labour's fears about English votes for English laws are exaggerated.
Labour's particular fears about the consequences of its introduction are greatly exaggerated. Were it to form, or be part of, a government made up of different parties in the next parliament, it is possible that Labour might, on some occasions, have to refine its legislative programme in the face of English opinion in the Commons. But what exactly is the democratic argument against it - or any other, UK government - having to do exactly that?
block-time published-time 3.11pm GMT
On the Daily Politics Lord Heseltine, the Conservative former deputy prime minister and prominent pro-European, predicted that one day Britain would join the euro.
We will join the euro. It is not [the view of the Conservative party]. It is a very personal view, which the establishment party wouldn't agree with. If I have to parade my conviction; I have lived through every one of these European arguments where we have resisted at every stage the European direction, and in every stage we in the end have given in and joined.
I've taken the quote from PoliticsHome.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 3.11pm GMT
block-time published-time 3.08pm GMT
Jim Murphy, the new Scottish Labour leader, has unveiled his Scottish shadow cabinet.
block-time published-time 2.50pm GMT
And the Green party are calling English votes for English laws "a cynical power grab by the Conservatives". This is from a party spokeswoman.
"English votes for English laws" is rightly seen as a rushed solution, designed to appease the core Tory vote unsettled by the questions thrown-up by the Scottish referendum debate. That is why the Green party are calling it for what it is: a cynical power grab by the Conservative party.
The Scottish referendum shook the ground of politics in Britain yet the current proposals fail to address the fundamental issues raised during the campaign: voter disillusionment with business-as-usual Westminster politics and the democratic deficit that has emerged between parliament and the people. That's why the Green party would push for whole-sale constitutional reform that includes greater powers for local and regional governments, total recall for MPs, a written constitution and electoral reform.
block-time published-time 2.47pm GMT
Plaid Cymru, the Welsh nationalist party, has issued its response to the English votes for English laws proposals. While it is in favour in principle, it thinks Wales needs further devolution. This is from Jonathan Edwards, a Plaid MP.
English votes for English laws seems reasonable. When considering the options put forward in the Command Paper, two key issues must be addressed.
The first is whether Welsh MPs are prohibited from voting on English measures that will impact on the Welsh budget. Clearly this would be unjust. With this in mind, some of the options in the Command Paper are more problematic than others.
Secondly, under any move towards English Votes for English Laws there will be a requirement to move towards a symmetrical devolution settlement where the four constituents parts of the British State have the same powers.
Without this, English Votes for English Laws would be very difficult to enforce due to there being several tiers of MPs.
Plaid Cymru believes in the simple principle of parity. By failing to address the mis-match between powers and funding in various parts of the UK, the Westminster parties are treating Wales as a second-class nation and will be judged for it at the ballot box in May.
block-time published-time 2.42pm GMT
The Constitution Unit, a research group based at University College London, has also said that the government should not rush into English votes for English laws (Evel).
This is from Professor Robert Hazel l, its director.
The hard liners who want a complete English veto are playing with fire. Given the complexities, this cries out for a gradualist approach. All four commissions which have looked at this have recommended a soft version of Evel: allowing a greater English voice, but not an English veto. A softer version also reduces the risk to the Speaker, who will have to rule on what is and what is not an English law. The technical difficulties and the political risks all point towards taking this gently, and initially trying EVEL out on an experimental basis.
And this is from Professor Meg Russell, its deputy director.
There's a real risk that the two main parties use this serious question as a political football in the run-up to the general election, with each defending a position that suits their own electoral interests, and seeking to embarrass the other. But such a key matter about the future of the UK's political system instead deserves cool-headed nonpartisan consideration - involving voices beyond the parties, and citizens themselves. Labour's constitutional convention idea would do this, but not start for months, and be too wide-ranging. The government should open up an inclusive conversation, on an adequate timetable, starting now.
block-time published-time 2.24pm GMT
The Electoral Reform Society has put out a statement saying, instead of having a vote on the English votes for English laws plans, the government should back a proper constitutional convention. This is from its chief executive, Katie Ghose.
The government has presented a shopping list of solutions to the English Question, demonstrating that even within the coalition they cannot agree on which solution is best. But that's not surprising - the chances of cross-party agreement on such a partisan issue are never going to be very high.
In any case, trying to tackle a single constitutional issue in isolation is never going to answer all of the questions currently facing the UK, such as how power should be shared between the nations and regions, and to what extent power should be devolved to the local level.
There is a better way to approach this problem, one which doesn't involve politicians squabbling behind closed doors as they drift further and further away from the public. A constitutional convention, giving citizens the lead in determining where power should lie, is the only way to make sure the UK reaches a lasting and legitimate settlement. And it's the only way to untangle some of the intractable problems surrounding the English Question without descending into partisan bickering.
Four of the five largest UK-wide parties are signed up to a citizen-led constitutional convention to decide how the UK should be governed, including addressing the English Question. It's time the Conservatives went beyond being 'open' to this idea and recognised the overwhelming support for giving citizens a say in where power should lie.
block-time published-time 2.17pm GMT
This is what MPs are saying about William Hague's plans on Twitter.
From Labour MPs
Hague circumspect on excluding Welsh MPs from "English Laws". What is an English Law?
- Ian Lucas (@IanCLucas) December 16, 2014
Tories playing cheap politics on the Constitution - from Cameron on September 19th to Hague's dissembling today.
- Ian Lucas (@IanCLucas) December 16, 2014
Hague takes 10mins to tell Commons his committee hasn't actually agreed anything.
- John Denham (@JohnDenhamMP) December 16, 2014
We could have agreement on English devolution, elected second chamber and EVEL. Hague's partisan approach puts it all at risk.
- John Denham (@JohnDenhamMP) December 16, 2014
Raised with Hague decisions on spending/taxes by HoC affect debt & interest rates across UK so Scots MPs should vote on Budget/Finance Bill
- William Bain (@William_Bain) December 16, 2014
I have no say on Transport for London but can vote on transport in Yorks constituency of W Hague #theIlfordSouthquestion
- Mike Gapes MP (@MikeGapes) December 16, 2014
EVEL will accentuate diffferences and deepen divisons between the 4 nations and accelerate the break-up of the UK.
- Paul Flynn (@PaulFlynnMP) December 16, 2014
From Conservative MPs
William Hague wraps himself in the flag of St George and slays the Labour dragon. #EVEL
- Jake Berry (@JakeBerryMP) December 16, 2014
No ifs no buts English votes for English Laws NOW. #EVEL
- Jake Berry (@JakeBerryMP) December 16, 2014
In Chamber listening to William Hague putting forward options for "English Votes for English Laws" Bring it on!
- Therese Coffey (@theresecoffey) December 16, 2014
Why should scots MPs, elected by fewer people than me, vote on things that affect Thurrock when I can't vote on Scots matters. #evel
- Jackie Doyle-Price (@JackieDP) December 16, 2014
80000 electors in my constituency, some in Scotland have 40000. This inequality is quite wrong. Support http://t.co/ypAJvcja0P
- Jackie Doyle-Price (@JackieDP) December 16, 2014
Considerable divergence between the parties over English Votes for English Laws. Basic political justice is at stake.
- Steve Baker MP (@SteveBakerMP) December 16, 2014
From Ukip
Reality is devolving much tax power to Scotland will entrench Barnett formula, not make it less relevant over time as Hague falsely claimed
- Mark Reckless (@MarkReckless) December 16, 2014
block-time published-time 1.57pm GMT
This is what Hilary Benn, the shadow communities secretary, had to say about Hague's plans on the World at One.
Hilary Benn says if PM really wants #evel he shd argue for an English Parliament #wato
- norman smith (@BBCNormanS) December 16, 2014
block-time published-time 1.56pm GMT
Labour's Wayne David asks what consultation Hague has carried out on how a bill would be designated English-only.
Hague says the Speaker does not decide government policy. But, now the government has set out its ideas, he will consult John Bercow about how this could work.
block-time published-time 1.54pm GMT
Stephen McCabe, the Labour MP, asks if the Speaker would decide whether a bill was English-only.
Hague says it would have to be the Speaker, or some other impartial authority. It could be a panel of committee chairs.
block-time published-time 1.51pm GMT
Asked how many bills in this parliament would be affected by these measures, Hague says "a great many". That is because these procedures could be applied to parts of bills, not just whole bills, he says.
block-time published-time 1.50pm GMT
Jason McCartney, a Conservative, says his constituents tell him that English votes for English laws is a matter of fairness.
block-time published-time 1.49pm GMT
Labour's Kevin Brennan says the Conservative party is morphing into an English nationalist party.
block-time published-time 1.49pm GMT
Glyn Davies, a Conservative MP for Montgomeryshire, says almost all healthcare for his constituency is delivered from England. He would be worried about not being allowed a vote on English health matters.
Hague says at least one of the options in the command paper would allow non-English MPs to speak on these matters, and to vote at some stages.
block-time published-time 1.46pm GMT
Here are some highlights from the Commons exchanges I missed while I was going through the command paper. (See 1.29pm.)
Jack Straw: can I remind William Hague that it was his party's policy to OPPOSE devolution to Scotland and to Wales
- Chris Ship (@chrisshipitv) December 16, 2014
Jack Straw says #EnglishVotes is "a bigger issue in theory than in practice".
- Robert Hutton (@RobDotHutton) December 16, 2014
. @DavidBlunkettMP asks Hague "Wouldn't it be sensible to take a deep breath and consider these issues for the long term?"
- Paul Brand (@PaulBrandITV) December 16, 2014
Gerald Kaufman: it's not right to call Hague's proposals as a dog's breakfast because any sensible dog would rightly turn up its nose
- Chris Ship (@chrisshipitv) December 16, 2014
Labour's Gerald Kaufman says he will vote against #EVEL no matter which government tries to bring it in - "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
- Paul Brand (@PaulBrandITV) December 16, 2014
"If it ain't broke don't fix it" says Gerald Kaufman. "It is broke" replies Hague. #EVEL
- Vicki Young (@VickiYoung01) December 16, 2014
We don't want a "rushed political stitchup" says Ben Bradshaw MP. How about a slow one then? #EVEL
- Christopher Hope (@christopherhope) December 16, 2014
It is time "to give the English the voice they deserve", shouts a passionate David TC Davies over Labour jeers #EVEL
- Christopher Hope (@christopherhope) December 16, 2014
Nick Brown calls #EVEL "Tory votes for Tory laws" and asks what are the Tories doing for regional devolution?
- Paul Brand (@PaulBrandITV) December 16, 2014
While criticising #evel Lab Newcastle MP Nick Brown slips in attack on his own party's devolution plans...calling them "superficial"
- Rob Merrick (@Rob_Merrick) December 16, 2014
. @BarrySheerman says "today I feel ashamed of the House" and way it's debating #EVEL - "not one of my constituents has ever been consulted"
- Paul Brand (@PaulBrandITV) December 16, 2014
William Hague says linking EVEL to House of Lords reform would be "a recipe to delay it for a very long time indeed".
- PoliticsHome (@politicshome) December 16, 2014
Labour's @JohnDenhamMP calls Hague proposals 'partial'. Hague responds: Labour can't walk away from cross party talks & call process partial
- Chris Ship (@chrisshipitv) December 16, 2014
Chris Bryant explains what William Pitt would do but William Hague is correcting him, out-Pitting him by at least a Younger
- ann treneman (@anntreneman) December 16, 2014
block-time published-time 1.29pm GMT
The 4 English votes for English laws options - Summary
There are four options for English votes for English laws (Evel) in the command paper.
Largely they are what we expected (see 9.13am), but William Hague has already rejected the weakest model of Evel, the one proposed by the McKay Commission. Under all Hague's plans English MPs would have an effective veto over English-only legislation.
Here are the three Conservative options in the document.
1 - Banning Scottish MPs from voting on English-only laws. This is the most hardline option an this is what the document says about it.
A Bill would be certified by the Speaker as applying to a particular part of the UK.
Where it related only to England or England or Wales, the Bill would have its second reading in a Grand Committee, comprising all the MPs from the relevant nation(s).
The Committee stage would be similarly restricted, and Report and Third Reading would be governed by a convention whereby MPs from other nations did not vote.
Bills that dealt exclusively with English matters already devolved to the other nations would proceed entirely through an English-only process.
Legislation that covered areas which were both devolved and reserved would need to pass through two parallel processes, one for each part of the bill.
2 Allowing English MPs the final say over the details of legislation. This is what the document says about this.
Bills certified as relating solely to English, or English and Welsh matters, would pass as normal at Second Reading.
The Committee Stage would be taken by those MPs only, in proportion to their party representation in the House of Commons.
At Report stage the bill would be voted on by those MPs only
At Third Reading the Bill would be voted on by the whole House.
The command paper says this would give English MPs "the decisive say" over the content of English-only legislation. But in practice it looks like a veto, because bills cannot be amended at third reading. The House of Commons as a whole would have to decide whether to accept the changes proposed by English MPs, or to drop the whole legislation.
3 - Allowing English MPs a formal veto over English-only legislation. The command paper describes this as a "significantly strengthened" version of the McKay Commission proposals that would give English MPs an "effective veto" over English-only measures. It also makes it clear that this would involve English MPs having a veto over income tax rates (because this is a matter that will be devolved to Scotland). This is what the command paper says about this proposal.
Second Reading would be taken as normal by all MPs.
The Committee stages of English or English and Welsh only bills would be taken in Committee only by MPs from those countries, in proportion to their party representation in the House of Commons.
This procedure would also apply to the English or English and Welsh parts of bills that contained both English or English and Welsh only clauses, and UK wide clauses.
Report Stage would be taken as normal by all MPs
An English Grand Committee would then vote after Report stage but prior to Third Reading, on a Legislative Consent Motion. English or English and Welsh MPs would therefore be able to grant their consent or veto a bill, or relevant parts of it.
Such decisions would have the same status as those of the Scottish Parliament on devolved matters. A bill could not pass to Third Reading without passing the legislative consent vote.
Third Reading would be taken as normal by all MPs, but only if the legislative consent motion was passed.
The English Grand Committee could have other functions, including determining the distribution of expenditure within England, such as local government finance or police grants, and it could also have additional questions to Ministers in departments with English only functions.
The principle of requiring consent from an English Grand Committee could be applied to levels of taxation and welfare benefits where the equivalent rates have been devolved to Scotland or elsewhere.
And this is the Lib Dem proposal.
4 - Allowing English MPs a veto over English- only bills - with English MPs voting on a proportional basis. This is what the command paper says about this.
The Liberal Democrat starting point is that for measures which unambiguously affect England only and which are not devolved below the Westminster level, there should be a new parliamentary stage before third reading or equivalent, composed of MPs proportionately representing the votes cast in England to allow them to scrutinise proposals and to employ a veto if they so wish.
William Hague Photograph: BBC News
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.52pm GMT
block-time published-time 12.59pm GMT
Here is the 34-page command paper, The Implications of Devolution for England (pdf).
block-time published-time 12.57pm GMT
John Redwood, the Conservative, says England wants "simplicity and justice" now. Will Hague speak up for England?
Hague says that he hopes he is speaking for England, and for the whole of the UK.
block-time published-time 12.56pm GMT
Hague is replying to Khan.
He says the idea that Labour is leading the debate on this is risible.
For 13 years Labour did not give extra powers to the cities and towns of England.
He says he has discussed the government's devolution plans with the leaders of Labour councils in England. Labour's frontbench is out of touch with these leaders. Labour has achieved the feat of being out of touch with themselves, he says.
Hague says the McKay Commission produced a range of options.
But, since further devolution is taking place, is it necessary to have something stronger and more binding.
That is why the Conservatives and the Lib Dems are both proposing binding legislative consent motions.
Hague says the government is "open to ideas" on a constitutional convention.
No one is arguing that the work of the Smith Commission should be delayed while a constitution convention is held.
And, similarly, the English reforms should not be held up while a constitutional convention is held.
block-time published-time 12.52pm GMT
Sadiq Khan, the shadow justice secretary, is responding for Labour.
He says the party favours the approach to this set out in the McKay Commission report.
Does the government support Labour's plans to devolve spending to the regions?
Does the government support the case for an elected House of Lords.
There should be no room for stitch-ups, he says.
block-time published-time 12.48pm GMT
Hague has finished his statement. I will post the full details of his proposals when I see the text of the statement, or the command paper.
But it is striking that all three of the options the Conservatives are backing are stronger than the plans proposed in the McKay Commission.
block-time published-time 12.46pm GMT
Hague says devolution has created the situation that allows MPs from outside England to vote on English matters, while English MPs cannot vote on matters outside England.
This is the so-called West Lothian Question. Both coalition parties agree it is an issue, he says.
The Lib Dems want English MPs at Westminster to have a veto over English-only issues. Their preferred method for this would involve the single transferable vote. But there is no support for this, so they want members of an English grand committee to be selected proportionately.
Hague says the Conservative still believe that equalised constituency sizes is necessary.
He says the Conservatives have set out three plans for English votes for English laws. All three are stronger than the plans in the McKay Commission report.
The first one would stop Scottish MPs voting on English-only bills. The advantage of this plan is its simplicity. There would be no need for a change to the procedure for dealing with bills.
The second plan would involve only English MPs voting on the amending stages of a bill. This idea was proposed by a commission chaired by Ken Clarke before 2010.
The third plan would involve English MPs voting on English-only matters at an early stage of a bill's passage through parliament, as well as giving them a veto at a later stage.
Whatever option is accepted must produce fairness for the whole of the UK, he says.
block-time published-time 12.40pm GMT
Hague says the government supports localism, but it should not be a way of imposing new taxes.
And Westminster should remain the law-making body for England, he says.
block-time published-time 12.38pm GMT
Hague says there have already been significant changes in England, including elected mayors and combined metro authorities. The government has also produced plans for a Northern powerhouse. This represents the biggest attempt to devolve power to northern England for decades.
block-time published-time 12.37pm GMT
William Hague is making his statement now.
On 19 September David Cameron announced the Smith Commission, to take forward devolution to Scotland. Draft legislation for that will be ready by 25 January, he says.
Hague says the government wants to give the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland more say over their affairs too.
The Welsh secretary is pushing forward plans to extend devolution to Wales. And the Northern Ireland secretary is pushing ideas for Northern Ireland, including the devolution of corporation tax.
Hague says today he is publishing plans for England.
Labour refused to cooperate.
The talks in Scotland and Wales have been on a cross-party basis. But it is only in England that Labour refuses to take a cross-party approach.
block-time published-time 12.27pm GMT
Steve Norris, the Conservative former transport minister, has used Twitter to express his support for English votes for English laws.
Doesn't justice demand that Scottish devolution means English entitled to similar rights? This is not anti-Scot. Simply fair and right. EVEL
- Steve Norris (@StevenJNorris) December 16, 2014
block-time published-time 12.25pm GMT
William Hague's statement on English votes for English laws
William Hague, the leader of the Commons, is making his statement about English votes for English laws shortly.
But that is not quite how he is phrasing it. The paper he is publishing is called "The Implications of Devolution for England".
block-time published-time 12.22pm GMT
Lunchtime summary
Lord Prescott, the Labour former deputy prime minister, has accused William Hague, the leader of the Commons, of a stitch-up by trying to rush through reforms that will restrict the rights of non-English MPs to vote in the House on exclusively English matters. Hague will be unveiling his plans at 12.30pm. I will be covering his statement in detail.
UK inflation fell to its lowest level in 12 years in November as a sharp drop in oil prices triggered falls at the petrol pump and provided some relief for cash-strapped British households, the Office for National Statistics has revealed.
Ofcom has appointed Sharon White, a senior Treasury official overseeing the UK's spending cuts, as its new chief executive.
Labour has criticised some Lib Dem MPs for backing a government motion defending cuts to firefighters' pensions after they signed a Labour motion opposing the proposals.The vote took place yesterday, and Labour's bid to stop the reforms was defeated by 313 votes to 261 - a majority of 52. Afterwards Labour pointed out that some of the Lib Dems who signed its early day motion opposing the plans abstained, or voted with the government.
1/2 Lib Dems who supported @UKLabour motion on #firefighterspensions but then voted against: @duncanhames@johnhemmingmp@markhuntermp
- Labour Whips (@labourwhips) December 15, 2014
2/2 Lib Dems who supported @UKLabour motion on #firefighterspensions but then voted against: @iswales Mike Thornton & @DavidWardMP
- Labour Whips (@labourwhips) December 15, 2014
LDs signed @UKLabour motion #firefighterspensions & abstained Beith Brooke Burstow Campbell Crockhart Gilbert Mulholland Russell & Williams
- Labour Whips (@labourwhips) December 15, 2014
block-time published-time 12.03pm GMT
You can read all today's Guardian politics stories here. And all the politics stories filed yesterday, including some in today's paper, are here.
As for the rest of the papers, here's the PoliticsHome list of top 10 politics articles, and here's the ConservativeHome round-up of all today's politics stories.
And here are two stories I found particularly interesting.
The Times (paywall) says David Cameron is heading for a confrontation with Conservative backbenchers over his plans for English votes for English laws.
David Cameron is heading for a confrontation with his own party within days when he announces proposals to limit the power of Scottish MPs.
Conservative MPs warned the prime minister last night that they would accept nothing less than an outright ban on Scottish MPs voting on English issues...
Mr Redwood said that a majority of Conservative MPs and most voters wanted an outright ban to balance the "lopsided" constitution. "Anything else would be insupportable," he said.
Ben Riley-Smith in the Daily Telegraph says Lucy Powell, Labour's election campaign vice chair, is being blamed for producing the document saying immigration isn't a top vote-winner for the party.
One of Ed Miliband's closest advisers has been identified as the person who approved a controversial document advising Labour MPs not to engage with voters on the subject of immigration.
Lucy Powell, vice-chair of the general election campaign, allowed the document revealed by The Telegraph to be sent to dozens of MPs which yesterday threatened to undermine Mr Miliband's attempts to claim Labour was getting tough on immigration.
The "incandescent" shadow cabinet rounded on Mr Miliband privately as he was forced to distance himself from the controversial 33-page memo by openly criticising the official Labour Party advice.
block-time published-time 11.32am GMT
Frank Field says England should have its own parliament
Frank Field, the Labour MP, has criticised Labour's policy on English votes for English laws.
The voters recognise weasel words when they hear them. Labour's offer of a major constitutional convention is a not very skilful attempt to kill the debate until after the votes are counted. This issue, once lost in the long grass, is where, I suspect, Labour will wish to keep it. But Labour has to accept the truth that the bonus that is gained from having Scottish MPs added to the English parliament now has a sell- by-date put on it by the Scottish voters themselves.
In an article for Standpoint magazine, which is not available on the web yet, he proposes a fully federal constitutional settlement for the UK - with England getting its own parliament.
An English assembly or parliament is the only way I see of answering Tam's West Lothian Question in a manner that re-establishes equity amongst the four countries of the United Kingdom.
Each assembly-for England, Wales and Northern Ireland- should have the powers that have been, or are about to be granted to the Scottish Parliament. The remaining functions would be reserved for a senate (which would replace the present House of Lords). Foreign affairs, defence and the remaining Exchequer pow- ers would be exercised by a senate common to all four nations. This senate, I suggest, should be made up of two types of members. Two hundred and fifty or so would be elected by the voters from new sen- ate constituencies based on between six and seven current parlia- mentary or, as they would be called, assembly constituencies. Each one of these senate constituencies would return a senator. Whether they should be elected on a first-past-the-post principle, or on some other form of proportional representation, should be the basis for further debate. What must be ruled out from the outset would be the current system for EU elections, where the party hierarchy de- cides the order in which the candidates are elected, with voters re- stricted to a choice of voting for a political party but never a person. We must be able to elect our senators and they must be accountable to a known electorate and be known to that electorate.
block-time published-time 11.20am GMT
On Twitter the Conservative MP Michael Fabricant says he supports the most hardline of the four version of English votes for English laws on offer. (See 9.13am.)
Report on English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) due out today. If legislation only affects England, only MPs for English seats should vote!
- Michael Fabricant (@Mike_Fabricant) December 16, 2014
block-time published-time 11.17am GMT
According to the Spectator's Isabel Hardman, some Tory MPs are meeting this morning to plan how they heckle Labour during this afternoon's statement on English votes for English laws.
block-time published-time 10.53am GMT
YouGov released some figures two months ago showing what people think about English votes for English laws.
The good news for the Tories is that people favour banning Scottish MPs from voting on English-only matters. But the bad news is that they don't regard this as a priority.
The cause of stripping Scottish MPs of some of their voting rights seems to be popular. A YouGov survey at the time of the recent referendum found that 72% of English electors want them banned from voting on England-only issues. Indeed 55% would go even further, and so something that no English politician has proposed: stop Scottish MPs from voting on tax and spending decisions.
Yet any party that made a big fuss about this might find the cause not so attractive after all. The danger emerges clearly from the YouGov/Prospect poll. We gave people a list of 18 things that Britain's government could do over the next few years, and asked them "which four or five do you think are most important?" Despite all the publicity for the issue, and the apparent support for change, curbing the voting rights of Scottish MPs comes half way down the list. Just 23% regard it as one of the main priorities, a long way behind tighter immigration rules, spending more on the NHS, holding down energy prices and increasing the minimum wage.
block-time published-time 10.45am GMT
And here's a comment on the inflation figures from Cathy Jamieson, a shadow Treasury minister..
These figures show that plummeting global oil prices have led to the rate of inflation falling here in Britain
But wages continue to be sluggish, barely keeping up with rising prices. The latest figures show total pay up by just 1 per cent - the same as today's CPI figure - and pay excluding bonuses up just 1.3 per cent.
While the Tories deny there is a cost-of-living crisis, the squeeze on living standards since 2010 means working people are on average £1600 a year worse off.
Labour's economic plan will ensure we earn our way to higher living standards for all, not just a few at the top. Our plan to tackle the cost-of-living crisis and for more good jobs is also a key part of our tough but balanced plan to get the deficit down.
block-time published-time 10.42am GMT
Here's George Osborne, the chancellor, on the inflation figures.
CPI inflation hits 12 yr low of 1pc. #LongTermEconomicPlan now delivering growth, jobs, low inflation and rising pay cheques for families
- George Osborne (@George_Osborne) December 16, 2014
And here's a comment from Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury.
Falling oil prices have helped push inflation to its lowest level since 2002. This is a welcome early Christmas present to millions of families across the country. And, as the Liberal Democrat Treasury minister, I am determined that the continuing oil price falls will be passed on to consumers as quickly as possible and in full.
block-time published-time 10.34am GMT
It has been confirmed that William Hague is giving a statement to MPs at 12.30pm about English votes for English laws.
Announcing today proposals on decentralisation within England & English Votes on English Laws. Fundamental issue of fairness for all the UK
- William Hague (@WilliamJHague) December 16, 2014
block-time published-time 10.01am GMT
Here is the start of the Press Association story about the inflation figures.
Inflation fell sharply to a 12-year low of 1% in November as lower food and petrol prices kept a lid on the cost of living.
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) measure of inflation dropped more steeply than expected from 1.3% in October, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said.
It means Bank of England governor Mark Carney only just avoids having to write to chancellor George Osborne to explain why inflation is more than 1% off its 2% target.
But the continuing slide in oil prices is expected to feed through to a further drop in CPI. Carney has already acknowledged that he is likely to have to write to Osborne in the coming months.
CPI has not been as low since September 2002 and was last lower in June 2002. It has now been at or below the 2% target for 12 months in a row.
November's figures showed food and non-alcoholic beverages fell by 1.7% on last year, the steepest drop since June 2002.
Prices in this sector have been falling year on year for five months in a row - the longest such stretch since 2000 - amid fierce competition between supermarkets under pressure from Aldi and Lidl.
Motor fuel fell 5.9% as average petrol prices dropped by 3p per litre over the month and diesel fell 2.9p, both steeper falls than the same month last year. It comes as oil prices have sunk to a five-year low.
block-time published-time 9.52am GMT
CPI inflation hits a 12-year low, at 1%
Here are the headline inflation figures.
The rate of consumer price index (CPI) inflation fell to a 12-year low of 1% in November from 1.3% in October.
The rate of retail price index (RPI) inflation fell to a five-year low of 2% from 2.3% the previous month.
Here is the Office for National Statistics news release. And here is the statistical bulletin with the full details (pdf).
block-time published-time 9.33am GMT
For the record, here are today's YouGov GB polling figures.
Labour: 34% (up 2 from YouGov in the Sunday Times)
Conservatives: 32% (no change)
Ukip: 14% (down 2)
Greens: 8% (up 1)
Lib Dems: 6% (down 1)
Labour lead: 2 points (up 2)
Government approval: -24 (no change)
According to Electoral Calculus, this would give Labour a majority of 14.
block-time published-time 9.25am GMT
And Labour's Graham Allen, chair of the Commons political and constitutional reform committee, has also criticised the government's plans. He said the government should be pushing ahead with proper devolution for England.
The Hague Cabinet committee set up to look at the consequences of the Scottish referendum has instead focused on one tiny Westminster issue and deliberately missed the opportunity to bring planned devolution to England... Government sees Parliament's role as delivering for Whitehall not championing devolution to the localities of England.
Our politics is broken, it needs fixing. This is a moment for political leadership, not complacency and business as usual. Focusing on one partisan issue and ignoring the wider historic opportunities smacks of rearranging the green benches on the deck of the Titanic.
block-time published-time 9.22am GMT
On Radio 4's Today Lord Prescott, the Labour former deputy prime minister, described the government's English votes for English laws plans as a "stitch-up".
This is a stitch-up. They can't get an agreement about it. They are rushing it before the election to make an election claim - English parliament for English MPs.
You can't divorce England from the rest and make the English parliament a central English parliament without proper accountability to the people as we have given in Scotland, as we have given in Wales and have given in Northern Ireland.
In the interview he also mis-spoke at one point and called Ed Miliband "Red Ed" by mistake.
UPDATE AT 9.42AM: Listening to the tape again, it seems clear that Prescott calling Miliband "Red Ed" was a case of him mangling his words, and not intentional. I've amended the sentence above to make that clear.
You can listen to it here.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 9.58am GMT
block-time published-time 9.13am GMT
Early on Friday 19 September, shortly after it had been confirmed that Scotland had voted to reject independence, David Cameron announced in a statement from Number 10 that he now wanted a better constitutional settlement for England too and that he would stop English MPs being over-ruled on English-only matters by Scottish MPs. In other words, he was going to push ahead with English votes for English laws, or Evel, to use its horrible acronym.
As Nicholas Watt, Severin Carrell and Patrick Wintour reveal today, in the first instalment of their account of the inside story of the independence campaign (it's excellent), Alistair Darling told Cameron in advance this would be a mistake.
Today we're going to get a paper outlining the government's plans. But the initiative has already been hit by problems. William Hague, the leader of the Commons, had to abandon plans to stage a vote on this before the end of November and the coalition parties still can't agree on what should happen. As a result today's document is expected to contain four alternative versions of Evel. In broad terms, this is what they are:
1 - Banning Scottish MPs from voting on English-only laws. This is the most hardline option.
2 - Allowing all MPs to vote on English-only legislation, but ensuring the English-only parts can pass if they are approved by English-only MPs. This would effectively give English MPs a veto over English-only proposals.
3 - Allowing English MPs to vote on English-only matters, but giving the final say to the whole House of Commons. This proposal, which was recommended last year by a government commission chaired by Sir William McKay, is intended to ensure that, where there is a disagreement between the English MPs and the House as a whole, a compromise has to be reached. Labour has recently adopted a version of this.
4 - Allowing a grand committee of English MPs to vote on English-only matters, with its members selected on a proportionate basis to reflect vote share at the election. This is the Lib Dem option.
Hague is expected to make a statement about this to MPs at 12.30pm. I will be covering that in detail.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: Inflation figures are released.
12.30am: William Hague is expected to make a statement to MPs about the government's English votes for English laws plans.
Around 1.30pm: Steve Webb, the pensions minister, is expected to make a Commons statement about Post Office card accounts.
3.15pm: Alistair Carmichael, the Scottish secretary, gives evidence to the Scottish affairs committee about the Smith Commission.
4pm: David Cameron gives evidence to the Commons liaison committee about climate change and radicalisation.
As usual, I will be also covering all the breaking political news from Westminster, as well as bringing you the most interesting political comment and analysis from the web and from Twitter. I will post a summary at lunchtime and another in the afternoon.
If you want to follow me on Twitter, I'm on @AndrewSparrow.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
33 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 16, 2014 Tuesday 5:10 PM GMT
How film can make us think differently about the planet;
Images of climate chaos in mainstream films can inspire a new generation of activists
BYLINE: Eleanor Ross
SECTION: CONNECT4CLIMATE PARTNER ZONE
LENGTH: 909 words
Blockbuster movies such as The Day After Tomorrow, 2012, and this year's Interstellar paint an apocalyptic portrait of the havoc climate change can wreak on the planet. In The Day After Tomorrow, New York City freezes; crashing waves and churning seascapes bear down on a major urban centre - all because we left the lights on too long.
Interstellar goes even further. Drought and famine have devastated the planet, leaving the Earth unsuitable for growing food and supporting people. Astronauts must search the universe for livable habitats, places that require mind-boggling journeys through wormholes to visit. The films may be fictional, but the jarring images remain long after viewers leave the cinema.
Films get people talking - regardless of the accuracy of the script - and are an effective way to mobilise public opinion, even on a subject as complex and seemingly surreal as climate change. Just think of the roles brand-name products now play films. Research has demonstrated how putting products such as soft drinks, food and technology in movies increases viewers recognition and acceptance of - even desire for - the product. If a viewer has positive associations with a movie, he or she is likely to also have positive associations toward the brand of laptop or the kind of bottled water a popular character has in their home.
Filmmakers and film producers who are passionate about climate change effects are placing global warming messages in their work, hoping that such large-scale "product placement" will have an effect on audiences of all kinds - especially the same youthful demographic consumer product marketers target.
"We are all participating in the world together, which is all about our survival of the planet and humanity," says Marc Forster, the German-Swiss filmmaker, who directed The Kite Runner and Quantum of Solace. He saw first-hand how film can be a change agent when he joined the jury of the Action4Climate film competition, which showcased climate change stories produced by young people all over the world.
Action4Climate, part of the World Bank's Connect4Climate programme, ran a competition that inspired young directors around the world to send in their climate change stories. Action4Climate received 230 documentaries from 70 countries that "showed a new world of climate impacts, solutions, and actions to address one of our generation's greatest challenges," says Lucia Grenna, Project Manager of Connect4Climate.
The World Bank's number one priority is to end poverty, but now ties that goal with the warming of the planet. "We will never end poverty if we do not tackle climate change," said Jim Yong Kim, President of the World Bank. One of the methods they're using to speak to the broadest audience possible about climate change is film.
Academy Award and Golden Globe-winning director Bernardo Bertolucci chaired the Action4Climate jury, and was amazed by the originality of the stories the competition produced: "[The films showed] genuine concern about the effects of climate change and described [them] from hundreds of different points of view," he said. "Selecting winners was an almost impossible task."
In the 18-35 age category, the $15,000 top prize went to the Portuguese filmmaker Gonçalo Tocha with his film The Trail of a Tale made in collaboration with Imagine2020 and the New Economics Foundation. This inspiring story revolves around a letter written in the future to people today about how the planet is going to prevail. Grenna emphasises: "The high standards of the Action4Climate documentaries will help viewers really understand how our climate is changing, what destruction this is causing, and inspire them to act."
Independent film-makers are also jumping on the climate change bandwagon, and producing thought-provoking documentaries. Disruption details efforts of well-known activists to organise the world's largest climate rally in history, The People's Climate March. The film's producers make their target audience perfectly clear: "We're the first generation to feel the impacts of climate disruption, and the last generation that can do something about it."
Disruption isn't the only film to try to inspire people to act against climate change. Postcards from Climate Change, a project born out of Hurricane Sandy, shows people starting to rebuild their lives after the disaster. The organisation collects footage from filmmakers, and solicits ideas and material from budding videographers in order to spread the word that a changing climate has enormous impacts.
"Visual storytelling is one of the strongest tools in an activist's toolbox," says Melissa Body, the project's spokeswoman. "Hearing personal stories about how climate change has impacted a person's life - yet how they still have hope for positive change - is one way we can overcome the epic challenge we face and help us feel connected to one another in the midst of this challenge. It is only when people in large numbers start believing that change is possible that change actually becomes possible."
How true. Films can be shown to large numbers of people, shared online and via social media. They can inspire people to think, and to act. They can also bring a near global challenge, such as overcoming the effects of climate change, to the forefront of public thought. They can make you reflect: what's my #action4climate ?
Content managed and produced by Connect4Climate
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
34 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 16, 2014 Tuesday 3:37 AM GMT
China climate negotiator says Lima deal 'balanced';
Chinese media broadly positive of climate deal but critical of 'double standards' on historical emissions
BYLINE: Jennifer Duggan in Shanghai
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 434 words
Chinese media coverage of the Lima climate change talks included comments by the country's top climate negotiator who described the deal reached as "balanced".
Xie Zhenhua told the state news agency Xinhua that the outcome was "within" the Chinese delegation's expectation. However he said: "we're not very satisfied with the outcome, but we think it's a balanced and nice document".
Xie added that the summit is an important step towards next year's summit in Paris but that those "negotiations will be more challenging and require parties to show greater flexibility".
China's role going into the talks was buoyed by its recent climate deal with the US. In the agreement announced in November, China committed for the first time to cap its output of carbon pollution by 2030 and to increase its use of zero emission energy sources to 20% by 2030.
However, while there was much progress on commitments, the issue of historical emissions has once again proven to be a sticking point that China is not willing to let go. "Developed countries should honor their commitments and shoulder their responsibilities under the Convention to do more in support of developing countries in terms of mitigation, finance, technology and capability building," Xie was quoted as saying.
A critical opinion piece in the English edition of the state run China Daily newspaper criticised the developed countries' "double standards" and that they have "blurred the difference between responsibilities of the rich and poor nations to fight climate change".
"Why does the developed world even pretend to help save the planet?" it adds.
Li Shuo, climate campaigner with Greenpeace said the issue of common but differentiated responsibilities is "the most challenging issue" for next year's climate change summit in Paris. "It has to be resolved in 2015 to achieve a robust agreement," Li added.
Another difficult negotiating point during the talks was on a method of accounting emission cuts. "The Lima conference ended up with a weak decision on this issue," said Li. "Largely as a result of opposition from China and India, there will not be much top down scrutiny that the multilateral process can put on the offers from different countries," he added.
Alvin Lin, the China Climate and Energy Policy Director with the National Resources Defence Council writes that China "is moving in the right direction and should be pro-active in providing the details needed to evaluate its actions, so that other countries can have confidence in China's actions and in turn step up their own efforts to reduce the threat of global climate change".
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
35 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 16, 2014 Tuesday
The International New York Times
China's Double-Edged Pact
BYLINE: By MARTIN ADAMS
SECTION: Section ; Column 0; OpEd; OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR; Pg.
LENGTH: 940 words
HONG KONG -- Whether China is a climate hero or a climate villain is a matter of polarized debate. At one extreme, the world's biggest carbon-emitter is portrayed as a wasteful bogeyman that obstructs efforts to halt global warming and ''steals'' clean-tech jobs through unfair practices. At the other extreme, people see Beijing's policies as the planet's best hope: With its aggressive plans to green its economy, backed by the mighty Communist machine, China is the foremost investor in renewable energy. The truth lies in between.
But recently China has done a canny job of presenting itself in the latter, greener light. The main reason for the more hopeful mood among some climate watchers is an accord signed by China and the United States during President Obama's trip to Beijing in November. To surprise and applause, China pledged that its emissions would peak by around 2030 and that, by the same year, alternative energy would provide around 20 percent of its needs. (For its part, the United States said it would cut emissions by 26-28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.)
China also promised to cap its burning of coal -- the main culprit for the country's severe air-pollution problems -- by 2020. Chinese officials have also reiterated plans to set up a national program for trading carbon permits, likely to be a cornerstone of its antipollution efforts, by as soon as 2016.
Indeed, China's commitments last month laid the groundwork for the deal reached on Sunday at the annual climate talkfest in Lima, Peru. As part of a global accord, developing countries agreed collectively for the first time to accept limits on their own emissions.
As all this shows, cleaning up their smog-ridden cities is a top priority for China's leaders, who are anxious to quell public disquiet over dangerous pollution. Yet they also strongly guard their national sovereignty. So China's willingness to sign up to an emissions cap in an international forum bolsters hopes for a worldwide pact next year in Paris building off the progress made in Lima. (Previous attempts to forge agreement, at Copenhagen in 2009, stumbled in the face of intractable disputes between the developed and developing worlds over who should foot the bill for preventing dangerous levels of warming.)
But seen in another light, China's latest pronouncements have skillfully shifted pressure onto other developing countries by making commitments that may appear bold but in fact don't go far beyond Beijing's earlier pledges.
And the timing, just weeks before the Lima conference, was ideal: Much of the recent media coverage consequently focused on India and other polluters that are reluctant to act against global warming. They will find it harder to resist demands to do more; China, meanwhile, is free to call on rich countries to pony up more money to combat climate change.
Not a bad thing, perhaps, if China were committing to deeper sacrifices than those it has already made. But the latest Chinese goals are not ambitious.
China is already on course to draw 15 percent of its energy from renewables by 2020, as it has long intended; aiming for 20 percent by 2030 is hardly a stretch. Based on the growing weight Chinese policy makers give to combating pollution, many researchers had predicted that emissions would peak around 2030. My colleagues and I at the Economist Intelligence Unit were already forecasting coal use to plateau by 2020. (How high emissions will climb before they crest is another vital question: On this, China remains quiet.)
Thus, China's plans look suspiciously like a clever recasting of forecasts as (nonbinding) targets.
Skepticism is also in order when it comes to the methods by which China means to address climate change. Even some charged with running China's current experiments in carbon trading fear that rushing the establishment of a national system by 2016, as proposed, is impossible. Seven carbon-trading pilot programs have made patchy progress. Some started only after long delays.
Even in mainland China's chief financial hub, all is not smooth. During a recent visit to the Shanghai climate exchange, my host apologized for the lack of trading. Following the end of the first annual ''compliance'' period in June, by which time companies had to adhere to emissions limits or buy extra permits to pollute, activity had for a while dried up altogether. Prices sagged at disappointingly low levels. Such teething problems are unsurprising, but they counsel caution about the pace at which a national program should be rolled out.
Stirring deeper doubts are China's notorious problems with transparency and statistical accuracy. Could emissions be rigorously monitored? In Lima, China fended off calls for electronic monitoring of its emissions-reduction plans as part of the United Nations process. Owing partly to Chinese resistance, the weakened Lima accord failed to set out strict rules on the information countries must give about their emissions-reduction commitments under a new treaty.
Then there is the symbiotic relationship between the government and state-owned firms. Would permits to pollute be fairly apportioned and scrupulously enforced? ''The last thing we want is a trading scheme with Chinese characteristics,'' said a veteran carbon financier.
None of this is to deny China's efforts on the environment. But Beijing needs to do more. If it is serious about curbing global warming, China should spell out how high it expects its emissions to rise and strive to set an earlier timing for that peak. For outsiders dealing with China on climate change the motto must be praise but verify -- and keep pushing for more.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/opinion/chinas-double-edged-pact.html
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Op-Ed
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
36 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 16, 2014 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
Greenpeace Won't Name Activists, Peru Says
BYLINE: By WILLIAM NEUMAN and ANDREA ZARATE; William Neuman reported from Caracas, and Andrea Zarate from Lima, Peru.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 8
LENGTH: 695 words
CARACAS, Venezuela -- Peruvian officials said on Monday that the environmental group Greenpeace had refused to hand over the names of activists who entered a protected area near the Nazca Lines, ancient etchings in the Peruvian desert.
During the just-concluded United Nations climate change summit meeting in Lima, Peru, the activists placed a sign promoting renewable energy on the ground and, the officials say, damaged the fragile landscape.
''Instead of leaving a positive message, they have left an irresponsible message, disrespectful of Peruvian laws,'' Congressman Alejandro Aguinaga said during a news conference in Lima, the capital. ''On top of that they have done irreparable harm to our heritage.''
Diana Álvarez, the minister of culture, said that the authorities would continue to try to identify the activists involved and might seek their extradition. She added that the activists had apparently left the country.
Greenpeace said the activists were from other South American countries and Europe. The group's leaders apologized earlier and pledged to cooperate with the inquiry.
Ms. Álvarez and Mr. Aguinaga asked for the names of the activists during a meeting on Monday with the group's international executive director, Kumi Naidoo.
''The answer was that they don't know the names,'' said Luis Jaime Castillo, Peru's vice minister for cultural heritage, who also attended the meeting. ''That seemed like a joke to us.''
Mike Townsley, a Greenpeace spokesman, said in a statement that the group was conducting an internal review. ''Everyone who was involved will be approached and asked to account for their role,'' the statement said. ''Until we have carried out a proper investigation we cannot comment on any individuals.''
On Dec. 8, a group of about 20 Greenpeace activists laid out a large sign on the ground beside the enormous figure of a hummingbird, one of many Nazca Lines etched in the desert more than 1,000 years ago. It is not known why the lines were made, but scholars believe they may have had been used in religious ceremonies.
The sign promoted renewable energy and included the group's name. But the desert ground is very delicate, and the authorities said the activists left marks that could well linger for decades or even centuries. Photographs show a visible track where they walked in and many marks near the hummingbird, as well as a mark in the shape of a ''C'' from the word ''Greenpeace.''
One of the leaders of the effort appeared to be an archaeologist who set aside his studies to work for Greenpeace. The archaeologist-turned activist, Wolfgang Sadik, was identified in a video made by a Reuters cameraman who covered the event.
In the video, Mr. Sadik is shown directing some of the other activists. ''We chose the Nazca Lines because we think that these lines are a symbol for climate change,'' he said in the video. ''What happened here in the past on a smaller scale happens now on a global scale, and the Nazca culture disappeared because of climate change.''
Rodrigo Abd, an Associated Press photographer who also covered the sign-laying, said that an archaeologist appeared to be in charge, although he did not know the man's name. ''He was very concerned that they not touch or damage the figure of the hummingbird,'' Mr. Abd said.
''The archaeologist explained where to walk and where not to walk,'' he said, adding, ''There was a great concern not to even leave a mark of your shoes on the ground, and if a rock was moved put it back in its place.''
Dr. Wolfgang Neubauer, a professor of archaeology at the University of Vienna, said that Mr. Sadik was one of his students and that the two of them had been authors of a scholarly article. He said that Mr. Sadik specialized in stratigraphy, the study of the layers of earth in which archaeological remains are found, and was working on a doctoral dissertation about an excavation at the town of Hallstatt in the Austrian Alps. Like the Nazca Lines, Hallstatt and the surrounding area have been designated a Unesco World Heritage site. He said that Mr. Sadik had put off his studies to work with Greenpeace.
Efforts to reach Mr. Sadik through Greenpeace were not successful.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/world/americas/greenpeace-wont-name-activists-peru-says-.html
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
37 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 15, 2014 Monday 8:24 PM GMT
US and India to announce joint climate change action during Obama visit;
Obama hopes to sustain global warming momentum next monthInitiatives will not be on scale of US-China climate change accord
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg in Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 509 words
America and India will unveil joint efforts to fight climate change when Barack Obama visits New Delhi next month, as the US tries to keep up the momentum of international negotiations.
Obama's visit - on the back of the United Nations talks in Lima - is seen as a key moment to persuade one of the world's biggest carbon polluters to step up its efforts to fight climate change.
After China and the US, India is the world's third largest producer of the greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change - although it is responsible for only about 6% of such emissions globally.
During the visit, Obama and the prime minister, Narendra Modi, are expected to unveil a number of modest initiatives to expand research and access to clean energy technologies.
The announcement in the works for Obama's visit to Delhi will be modest in scale - nowhere near last month's milestone agreement between the US and China to cut their carbon pollution.
"I am expecting a useful meeting but we don't have anything in the works of the kind that we were involved with in China," Todd Stern, the State Department climate change envoy, said.
But the visit still represents a key moment as major economies begin to deliver on the promises made in Lima to fight climate change.
Under the deal, all countries are expected to announce by 31 March emissions reductions targets and other actions to fight climate change.
With China already agreeing to cut its carbon pollution, and South Korea and Latin American countries paying into a climate fund for poor countries, the new all-inclusive nature of the Lima deal has put India under a spotlight.
"Are we expecting from India too much and leaving the polluters without any accountability?" the environment, forest and climate change minister, Prakash Javadekar, said. "This is a big thing that developing countries are doing."
India is already understood to be working on its targets for the United Nations, but it will not put forward those numbers until June, Javadekar said.
However, he added that India would make ambitious efforts. "We are doing very aggressive actions on our own. So we would like to put them on record and on public domain," he said.
Indian newspapers reported earlier this month that Modi was working to announce an "aspirational" year for peaking emissions ahead of Obama's visit.
Javadekar pushed back on that idea - and on the entire notion that India should be required to peak its emissions at all, arguing that its emissions still represented only a fraction of China's.
But he said that India was stepping up its efforts to deal with climate change, and was increasing its targets for expanding solar power and energy efficiency. "In the next two years, there will be major changes," he said.
He said Modi would press Obama to set up a global clean energy research consortium or make funds available for licences for clean energy technologies, perhaps from international climate finance.
"They can compensate from Green Climate Fund to their companies," Javadekar said. "Why should companies profit from disaster?"
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
38 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 15, 2014 Monday 6:03 PM GMT
UN climate change talks: what do NGOs think about the Lima Accord?;
An agreement was finally reached in Lima's climate talks late last night. But what do NGOs think about what was achieved?
BYLINE: Anna Leach and Maria Evrenos
SECTION: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS NETWORK
LENGTH: 1398 words
block-time published-time 6.03pm GMT
Thanks for all your contributions. We've had a variety of responses but the overwhelming emotion from NGOs seems to be disappointment that the upward swing from September's UN talks and the People's Climate Marches failed to deliver clear directions to Cop 21 in Paris next year - where everyone in the sector agrees that solid binding commitments must be agreed.
Thank you for reading and feel free to leave your thoughts on what happened at Lima and what should happen now in the comments section below.
block-time published-time 3.59pm GMT
350.org communications director Jamie Henn has sent us their take. "Negotiators failed to build on the momentum coming into these talks. Over the past year, hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets to demand climate action-millions more will join them in the year ahead. Politicians can either ride that wave, or be swept away by it.
We were pleased to see around 100 countries support the goal of phasing out carbon emissions by mid-century. The goal's inclusion in the draft text is a win for the fossil fuel divestment movement and will add momentum to that growing campaign. But action must begin now, not after decades of delay.
We must continue to take on the biggest barrier to progress: the fossil fuel industry. During COP20, more than 53,000 people call on the UN to ban fossil fuel industry lobbyists from the climate talks. We know that companies like Chevron and Shell are working behind the scenes to block action. They don't deserve a seat at the table when they're trying to burn it down.
These climate talks have shown a clear disconnect between the negotiations and the global movement offering real, immediate solutions to the climate crisis. Regardless of the outcome falling short, the movement continues to grow unabated."
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.00pm GMT
block-time published-time 3.42pm GMT
block-time published-time 3.24pm GMT
Representing the human rights perspective at the talks, Jane Cohen senior researcher on environment at Human Rights Watch said:
"We were hoping to come away from Lima with a good basis for a robust climate agreement that protected the human rights of people around the world. Unfortunately what happened in Lima fell far short of that, with a weak decision on emissions and virtually no progress on protecting the rights of millions of people who are and will be affected by climate change."
block-time published-time 3.17pm GMT
block-time published-time 3.06pm GMT
Louise Whiting, senior policy analyst at WaterAid was more positive than some. She said the talks have "opened the door to a stronger deal in Paris next year" and are "a step in the right direction". She is clear however that "there is a lot of work to do over the next 12 months" to secure a global agreement on "drastic cuts".
block-time published-time 2.58pm GMT
Some more from Brandon Wu at ActionAid USA :
"We wanted three primary things from Lima: clear indications of how developed countries would scale up climate finance leading up to the promised $100bn per year in 2020; assurance that "loss and damage" would be a core pillar of the new climate regime to be decided in 2015; and concrete commitments to reduce emissions in the immediate short term (pre-2020). Lima delivered none of these things.
"For developing countries this was no outcome at all. There is no new money to help them adapt to climate impacts or transition to cleaner economies. There is no assurance that they will be supported in their efforts to deal with loss and damage. And hope is rapidly fading that developed countries will act urgently to reduce their emissions to stop the climate crisis from getting worse.
"The bright side was that social movements, NGOs, development professionals and other members of civil society (including laboir unions, youth, indigenous peoples, women and gender organisations) were virtually united in speaking the truth about the Lima talks: that while governments might hail it as a step forward, however tentative, in reality the talks delivered nothing at a time when taking action is becoming increasingly urgent, especially for the poorest and most vulnerable.
"The recent mobilisations in New York and Lima - in which impacted people were front and centre - show that there's a growing understanding that climate change is not just an issue for environmentalists, but one that affects everyone's lives, livelihoods, and human rights. The work we have to do moving forward is to capitalise on this momentum and build the power we need to force our governments to tackle this issue with the urgency and seriousness that science and justice demand."
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 3.09pm GMT
block-time published-time 2.50pm GMT
block-time published-time 2.48pm GMT
block-time published-time 2.43pm GMT
We've just spoken to David Nussbaum chief executive of WWF-UK who said that "overall it was a disappointing outcome". After a positive start to the talks, riding on the back of the UN summit in September and the New York climate march, he said that ended up "an opportunity not taken".
"We know where we need to get to - we need to get to a deal in Paris that secures a safe and stable climate. The challenge we've got is that parts of the map of how to get there from Lima are missing. There's a fundamental gap between scientific necessity and what is politically possible."
block-time published-time 2.16pm GMT
block-time published-time 2.13pm GMT
Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre director Dr Maarten van Aalst said:
"Lima was an important step, but there is still a lot of work to do to reach a deal in Paris, and we'll need to step up our level of ambition. Interestingly, some people are starting to feel that in some ways the United Nations Framework for the Convention on Climate Change needs to catch up with the calls for action, and real progress on the ground, around the world.
"We may need to think out of the box to achieve more of that momentum. One of my most exciting moments in Lima was an art project by Tomas Saraceno : a lighter-than-air sculpture from trash plastic bags collected by Peruvian Red Cross volunteers."
Intiñan, meaning way of the sun in central Andean language Quechua, was made by Berlin-based artist Tomas Saraceno using recycled materials. Photograph: Alex Wynter/Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre
block-time published-time 2.06pm GMT
block-time published-time 2.05pm GMT
block-time published-time 2.05pm GMT
block-time published-time 2.03pm GMT
ActionAid were not impressed by the agreement. Brandon Wu at ActionAid USA called it "a pathetically weak outcome" and Farah Kabir at ActionAid Bangladesh said the talks had "failed poor farmers, especially women farmers around the world".
Harjeet Singh at ActionAid International had this summary:
"We came to Lima hoping that these negotiations would finally deliver what's needed to help poor people adapt to the effects of climate change. These hopes were in vain. As the Peruvian glaciers melt, and farmers around the world face dry rivers and warmer temperatures, the need for support could not be clearer. Yet the demand for adaptation and finance have been repeatedly ducked. It's as if the world has forgotten that climate change is already causing unprecedented loss and damage."
block-time published-time 1.46pm GMT
From World Development Movement 's director Nick Dearden:
"Sadly, what we saw in Lima was an extension of what we've seen in previous climate talks with rich countries and the biggest polluters setting an agenda that completely fails to keep anyone within safer boundaries of climate change, while doing next to nothing for those countries who are already feeling the impacts now, or who will be in the future.
"Richer countries have a clear financial obligation to assist countries in the global south in adapting to the unavoidable impacts of climate change, but in Lima they again dodged the question of how this would be included in a post-2020 agreement."
block-time published-time 1.42pm GMT
Summary
COP20, the United Nations climate change conference in Lima, ended last night with an agreement. But what do NGOs think about what was and wasn't achieved? What are the repercussions for developing countries? And what are the organisations who were there planning to do next?
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
39 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 15, 2014 Monday 5:05 PM GMT
Is the Lima deal a travesty of global climate justice?;
Poorer countries likely to reject agreement in Paris next year if onus falls on them rather than those largely responsible for global warming
BYLINE: John Vidal
SECTION: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT
LENGTH: 849 words
At one point on Saturday night it looked quite likely that the Lima climate talks would collapse in disarray. Instead of the harmony expected between China and the US following their pre-talks pact, the world's two largest economies were squaring off; workmen were dismantling the venue; old faultlines between rich and poor countries were opening up again and some countries' delegations were rushing to catch their planes.
In the end, after a marathon 32-hour session where everyone stared into the abyss of total failure, a modicum of compromise prevailed. Some deft changes of emphasis in the revised text and the inclusion of key words such as "loss" and "damage" proved just enough for diplomats to bodge a last-minute compromise. There were cheers and tears as the most modest of agreements was reached. The Peruvian president of the UN climate change convention, or Cop20, could say without irony: "With this text, we all win without exception."
Not so. Countries may technically still be on track to negotiate a final agreement in Paris next year, but the gaps between them are growing rather than closing and the stakes are getting higher every month.
We have now reached the point where everyone can see clearly that whatever ambition there once was to respect science and try to hold temperatures to an overall 2C rise has been ditched. We also know that developing countries will not get anything like the money they need to adapt their economies and infrastructure to climate change and that those countries that have been historically responsible for getting the world into its current climate mess will be able to do much what they like.
As it stands, 21 years of tortuous negotiations may have actually taken developing countries backwards on tackling climate change. From an imperfect but legally binding UN treaty struck in 1992, in which industrialised countries accepted responsibility and agreed to make modest but specific cuts over a defined period, we now have the prospect of a less than legally binding global deal where everyone is obliged to do something but where the poor may have to do the most and the rich will be free to do little.
In 1992, rich countries were obliged to lead and to help the poor, but we now have a situation where those who had little or no historical responsibility for climate change are likely to cut emissions the most.
This travesty of global climate justice, say many developing countries, is largely the fault of the US, which, backed by Britain and others industrialised countries like Canada and Australia, has helped build up distrust in developing countries by continually trying to deregulate the international climate change regime by weakening the rules, shifting responsibility to the south and making derisory offers of financial help.
The US secretary of state, John Kerry, made an impassioned speech in Lima warning that the world was "on a course leading to tragedy", but inside the conference halls the US negotiators were not giving an inch during the negotiations, and the emissions cuts that the US proposed would put the world on a path for a global temperature increase well beyond the already dangerous 2C.
Countries now have little time to resolve fundamental issues, and success in Paris is not at all certain. All countries will be asked to submit their plans for curbing greenhouse gas emissions, known as intended nationally determined contributions, to the UN by 31 March. The UN will then crunch the figures and a few weeks before the talks open we will know just how far away countries are to limiting temperature increase to below 1.5C or 2C.
As it stands, we may be on track for 4C of warming. But with more than 100 countries supporting the ambitious goal of phasing out all man-made carbon emissions by 2050, Paris will see a massive showdown.
From now on, the stakes only get higher. Led by China, Africa and the least developed countries see weak and unjust climate targets from rich industrialised countries and, over the next year, they will exert as much pressure as they can to establish a fair and equitable way to share out what is left of the global carbon budget. But as Lima showed, they are now working together and are unlikely to sign up to what they think is a meaningless deal.
The other problem ducked in Lima was finance. Developing nations wanted rich countries to set a clear timetable to scale up the funds available to help them adapt. But the final text merely "requested" that rich countries "enhance the available quantitative and qualitative elements of a pathway" towards 2020.
Because the industrialised countries have already promised to secure $100bn a year after 2020, developing countries will want cast-iron assurances about how this will be achieved. Given that rich countries have so far pledged only about $10bn to run over the next five years, the gap may be too great and the likelihood of failure in Paris is high.
Unless the rich countries take care in the negotiations, at some point it will become clear to developing countries that no deal may prove better than any deal.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
40 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 15, 2014 Monday 5:01 PM GMT
International Tea Day: choose a cuppa that makes a difference;
Fairtrade is enabling farmers and workers in the tea sector to tackle some of the challenges they face and bring benefits to their communities
BYLINE: Rachel Wadham
SECTION: SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS - FAIRTRADE PARTNER ZONE
LENGTH: 1068 words
With an estimated 165m cups of tea consumed in the UK on a daily basis, it would be easy to think that every day is International Tea Day. However, since 2005, International Tea Day has officially been observed on 15 December, giving us an opportunity to reflect on the impact of an industry that millions of farmers and workers across the globe depend on for their livelihood.
The tea sector faces many challenges: unsustainably low prices and wages, the undervaluing of tea as a commodity and changing climate patterns that impact on yields, to name just a few. Simply put, tea is too cheap and not enough value goes back to the farmers and workers who depend on it for their living. It's an issue that the whole industry needs to tackle together, and one that Fairtrade, and the Ethical Tea Partnership - which brings together tea producers, tea companies, certification schemes including Fairtrade, NGOs and others in the tea industry - are working to address, so that the long-term future of the tea industry can be more sustainable.
Fairtrade's work in the tea sector aims to enable producers to have more control over their livelihoods. Certified producers receive the Fairtrade Minimum Price for their tea sales as well as the Fairtrade Premium, an extra sum to invest in their communities and businesses as they choose. For smallholder tea farmers, Fairtrade can also open up opportunities to develop knowledge in good agricultural practices, income diversification and climate change adaptation. For workers on tea plantations, Fairtrade standards aim to ensure decent working conditions and the protection of workers' rights.
There are an estimated 285,000 people involved in Fairtrade tea production as smallholder farmers or as workers on Fairtrade certified tea plantations. Kenya is one of the largest exporters of tea to the UK and has 117,000 of these producers alone. Sireet Outgrowers Empowerment Project Company (Sireet OEP), a small producer organisation in the Nandi Hills region of Kenya, has been Fairtrade certified since 2006 and has been able to implement changes that have brought wide-reaching benefits for its members and their communities.
Victor Biwot, operations manager of Sireet OEP said: "What Fairtrade has done is it has made Sireet OEP become an organisation that is relevant to the needs of its members. For example, issues of good agricultural practices, that is what we are sharing with farmers every other day, improve the husbandry activities on their tea which improve the environment."
Sireet OEP is forward-thinking on issues including gender equality, business investments and adapting to climate change. Since Fairtrade certification, the membership of women farmers has gone up from 2.7% to 24%. Investing in the Fairtrade Premium to support the purchase of transport trucks and its own processing factory has enabled the organisation to move up the value chain and create a sustainable model of investment. The dividends from the 12.8% share of the factory purchased by the premium are reallocated into the premium fund each year, to be continually invested in social and environmental projects.
These social projects are chosen by their communities and include a range of initiatives, from school bursaries to healthcare facilities and water tanks. These community investments not only relieve the immediate burdens but can also have a positive impact on household income of farmers.
For example, Teresa Kurgat is a tea farmer and has benefited from a water tank in her community built with premium money. As she no longer has to travel long distances to collect water, she now has more time in her day to run her small business, a local shop. With easy access to water, her cows are now producing more milk and she is able to grow vegetables during the dry season. All of these have impacted on her food security and the income of the household.
Fairtrade has also opened up opportunities for Sireet to work with different partners, such as the Cafédirect Producers' Foundation and Vi Agroforestry, to implement climate change adaptation and income diversification projects. Fairtrade Premium has been used to fund the extension of some of these initiatives, such as establishing tree nurseries to help with soil fertility and farmer training sessions in implementing income diversity through kitchen gardens and bee keeping.
Fairtrade also works with certified plantations to help bring improvements to the lives of workers on tea estates. A long-term study in Malawi by the University of Greenwich and the Fairtrade Foundation found that at Satemwa tea estate workers recognised an improvement in relationships between workers and management since certification, with the Fairtrade Standards having a positive influence on working conditions such as improved maternity leave, other leave entitlements, protective clothing and overtime.
Workers on Fairtrade certified estates also benefit from Fairtrade Premium. Workers choose how the premium money is spent themselves, through a committee of elected worker representatives, putting the control in their hands to invest in projects that they feel will improve their lives.
At the Kibena Tea Estate in Tanzania, premium money has been invested in projects that can ease the burden on household incomes and improve the social atmosphere on the estate. This includes bursaries for school fees, loans to pay for new tin roofing for their homes, onsite sports teams and the construction of school, health care and recreational facilities.
On average, Fairtrade certified tea producers sell less than 10% of their tea on Fairtrade terms, but it is striking from these examples how even a small proportion of Fairtrade sales can make a positive difference. If more of those 165 million cups of tea we drink everyday in the UK were Fairtrade, then more farmers and workers would have the opportunity to build a better future for their families and communities, despite the challenges they face.
View some UK tea facts here
More from the Fairtrade partner zone:
Fairtrade Access Fund offers up-front finance to farmers who need it most
Reflections of a coffee farmer: how Fairtrade changes lives
Sustainable procurement at the 2014 Commonwealth Games
Content on this page is paid for and provided by Fairtrade Foundation, sponsor of the supply chain hub
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
41 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 15, 2014 Monday 4:39 PM GMT
Investing in nature: what governments can learn from Comoros;
Union of Comoros integrates recommendations from the World Parks Congress in Sydney into its development plans
BYLINE: Stig Gustaf Johansson and Jamie Ervin
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 1001 words
One of the most exciting announcements to come out of last month's IUCN World Parks Congress in Sydney, Australia, was the promise made by vice president Fouad Mohadji of the Union of Comoros to increase the number of terrestrial parks by 18% and marine parks by 5% over the next four years.
This announcement might seem counter-intuitive to some. With chronic food and water shortages that are exacerbated by climate change, a burgeoning population of 735,000 - 43% of whom are under the age of 15 - an unemployment rate of 48% and a history of 28 coups within the past 40 years, the tiny island nation faces an uncertain and potentially volatile future. Why then would they decide to devote so much territory to conservation rather than exploiting it for development?
In fact, the decision to invest in nature makes perfect sense to the government of Comoros, for whom conservation is development since it is believed that protected areas can play a strategic role in the country's broader development plans. The Comoros government understands that safeguarding the country's diverse ecosystems is an efficient means of maintaining food and water security, creating jobs, sustaining livelihoods and providing a buffer from the worst of climate change impacts. An investment in nature protection is an investment in national peace, progress and prosperity.
The Union of Comoros reflects the challenges and choices that our whole planet will face in coming decades: how to sustain a growing population on a hotter, increasingly water-stressed planet with tumultuous, unpredictable weather. As goes the island, so goes the mainland.
The eight-day Congress resulted in the "Promise of Sydney", a manifesto that the 6,000 participants hope will shape protected area and economic development discourse for the coming decade. Three strong messages, and reasons for hope, emerged from the event.
The first is that the conservation community has become better at valuing the benefits of nature, using the language of economic decision makers and investors, and accounting for protected area values as part of the economy. Park authorities, environment ministries, conservation organisations and development agencies are talking about jobs created, water and erosion control services delivered, and storm damage costs averted, not just numbers of species saved. The tally of those services is impressive, and underscores the ability of biodiversity and protected areas to deliver on a wide range of development goals.
Nelson Devanadera, executive director at Republic of the Philippines' Palawan Council for Sustainable Development, for example, explained how natural capital accounting is informing decision-making on investment trade-offs and economic development in Southern Palawan. Meanwhile Norbu Wangchuk, officiating chief at the Gross National Happiness Commission for the Royal Government of Bhutan, spoke of the importance of conservation to the country's Gross National Happiness - 60% of the population depends on ecosystem services for their livelihoods, an undervalued green economy worth $15.5bn (£9.8bn), five times more than the official GDP.
The second reason is that nature is increasingly recognised as an important land use asset in feeding a planet projected to grow to 11 billion by 2100, and meeting the world's multi-billion dollar infrastructure needs. For example, the Thai government is investing in wetland protection to mitigate the impacts of the next deluge in Bangkok. Whether the issue is reducing the risk from natural disasters, storing carbon, or protecting clean water sources for agriculture, aquaculture and cities, healthy protected ecosystems provide precious natural infrastructure for green growth today and a low-cost insurance policy for the shocks and stresses of tomorrow.
The third message to come out of the Congress is that parks alone are insufficient lifeboats to help us weather the perfect storm of population growth, unrestrained consumption, loss of biodiversity and climate change. Parks cannot provide benefits in isolation; they must be spatially integrated and connected across permeable and dynamic landscapes to play their part in the broader economic land use.
There is also growing global understanding of the need to link parks to development sectors, including agriculture, water, health and rural development. Kristal Maze, a participant from the South African National Biodiversity Institute, made a convincing case for why parks and development go hand in hand when she spoke about the value of protected areas to water security. 60% of the Cape's drinking water and 100% of Cape Town's water comes from protected ecosystems. South Africa is now integrating parks into its national water plans. Given that nearly a third of the world's 100 largest cities depend on protected areas for part of their drinking water, (pdf) other countries may want to follow suit.
Many countries struggling to tackle development challenges should take a cue from the Comoros and integrate parks into their development plans. Within four years, Comoros will have increased its protected area estate tenfold and will have forged a more secure path towards sustainable development by grounding growth in the protection of nature. Now that's a promising future.
Dr Stig Johansson is senior forestry specialist at World Bank Group and Jamie Ervin is senior advisor to UNDP's Ecosystems and Biodiversity team
More stories like this:
Why impact assessments are good for non-profits but bad for business
$2.5tn shortfall for sustainable development in developing countries
Brought to you by Business Call to Action: Five lessons learned in development finance
The role of business in development hub is funded by Business Call to Action. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled advertisement feature. Find out more here.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
42 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 15, 2014 Monday 4:00 PM GMT
Tropical rainforests not absorbing as much carbon as expected, scientists say;
Findings could indicate some forests are not helping mitigate effects of climate change by removing excess carbon dioxide from atmosphere
BYLINE: Stuart Clark
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 530 words
The increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not making trees in tropical forests grow faster, say scientists who have analysed over 1,100 individual trees from forests in Bolivia, Thailand and Cameroon.
Researchers had expected higher CO2 levels to act as a tree fertiliser so boosting growth. The finding could indicate that such forests are not helping mitigate the effects of climate change by removing excess CO2 from the atmosphere.
The results contradict previous studies that made inventories of the total number of trees in particular regions of tropical forests and found the numbers increasing. So it may be that tropical forests are becoming more dense rather than individual trees growing faster.
CO2 is essential to trees. It is absorbed from the air and turned into sugar using energy from light during photosynthesis. The sugar is then transported around the tree allowing it to grow. Each year, a tree lays down a new tree ring. Its width indicates how fast the tree has put on weight during that growing season.
Over the past 150 years, the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has increased by 30% to 35%. This should drive more photosynthesis meaning more growth and fatter tree rings.
However, Peter van der Sleen at Wageningen University, The Netherlands and his colleagues found no such increase in the 1109 trees from 12 species they studied. "It was very surprising. The results call into question whether tropical forests are carbon sinks," said van der Sleen.
The tropical forests contain a quarter of all the carbon found in living things on Earth. They have been suggested as a major carbon sink, removing carbon dioxide from the air. If left in the atmosphere, that carbon dioxide would help retain more heat in the atmosphere and have more of an impact on climate change.
But the new findings, published in Nature Geoscience, run contrary to older experimental conclusions. A network of 50-metre-high towers in some tropical forests measure the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere above the canopy of trees. These towers show that CO2 does appear to be pulled from the air by the forests. So where is it going?
Studies known as forest inventories may have the answer. In these studies, forest plots are singled out and inventoried at regular intervals. Over the past several decades, these have shown that the density of trees is increasing as more carbon is used up.
This would increase the biomass of the forest by adding more trees rather than accelerating the growth of older ones. Either way, it would scrub carbon out of the atmosphere as a result. But it does not explain why the established trees do not grow faster.
"The experiments that predicted accelerated tree growth with increases in carbon dioxide are elegant and convincing," said van der Sleen. "Why tree density would be enhanced but not existing tree growth is very difficult to answer."
New experiments in Brazil will investigate. Called free-air CO2 enrichment (Face), the experiments will bathe patches of the tropical forest in high levels of CO2 and measure what happens to the growth rate of established trees versus saplings.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
43 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 15, 2014 Monday 12:01 AM GMT
Sustainable development goals could be compromised by cuts, MPs warn UK;
House of Commons committee fears Britain's wish to reduce goals from 17 to 12 would undermine environmental sustainability
BYLINE: John Vidal
SECTION: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT
LENGTH: 413 words
Britain will undermine the UN's sustainable development goals (SDGs) by trying to reduce their numbers and continuing to give tax breaks and susbsidies to the fossil fuel industry, a powerful group of MPs has warned.
The targets, which will be approved in September 2015, when the millennium development goals expire, will set all countries objectives for poverty reduction, social development and protection of the planet. But MPs on the House of Commons environmental audit committee said they feared that if the 17 goals proposed were reduced to 12, as Britain wants, environmental sustainability was likely to be sacrificed, with dangerous consequences.
"The UK must not risk undermining the sustainable development goals. Any continued argument for a smaller number of goals, in the face of the secretary general's recent guidance, risks creating unnecessary divisions between countries when it should be seeking to build support for ambitious action," they said.
"In some areas the UK government appears to be actively encouraging unsustainable development. It's time we put the brake on tax breaks and subsidies for the fossil energy [that is] fuelling climate change and air pollution. The new goals will have to be met by all countries, not just developing countries. Our aim must be to de-couple economic growth from polluting and unsustainable resource use," said the environment audit committee's chairwoman, Joan Walley.
The committee, which took evidence from civil servants, ministers, NGOs and Europe, criticised Britain for giving too much importance to economic development, which it too often viewed as a magic bullet in development.
"We have seen time and time again that economic growth on its own is insufficient in improving the nutrition status of countries," it said.
"Inequality prevents sustainable development, not only because it can undermine social cohesion and a sense of shared wellbeing, but because some sections of societies may be excluded from the benefits of development and prosperity.
"Britain [should] demand the highest standards of environmental protection in trade deals, and lead international efforts to improve air quality in cities in developing countries," said the MPs.
They urged government to push to keep the proposed separate climate change goal in the SDGs, and push back against member states wanting it removed or watered down, given the importance of reaching an ambitious global climate change agreement in Paris next year.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
44 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 15, 2014 Monday
Late Edition - Final
A Climate Accord Based on Global Peer Pressure
BYLINE: By CORAL DAVENPORT
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; NEWS ANALYSIS; Pg. 3
LENGTH: 1258 words
LIMA, Peru -- Shortly before 2 a.m. on Sunday, after more than 36 straight hours of negotiations, top officials from nearly 200 nations agreed to the first deal committing every country in the world to reducing the fossil fuel emissions that cause global warming.
In its structure, the deal represents a breakthrough in the two-decade effort to forge a significant global pact to fight climate change. The Lima Accord, as it is known, is the first time that all nations -- rich and poor -- have agreed to cut back on the burning oil, gas and coal.
But the driving force behind the new deal was not the threat of sanctions or other legal consequences. It was global peer pressure. And over the coming months, it will start to become evident whether the scrutiny of the rest of the world is enough to pressure world leaders to push through new global warming laws from New Delhi to Moscow or if, as a political force, international reproach is impotent.
The strength of the accord -- the fact that it includes pledges by every country to put forward a plan to reduce emissions at home -- is also its greatest weakness. In order to get every country to agree to the deal, including the United States, the world's largest historic carbon polluter, the Lima Accord does not include legally binding requirements that countries cut their emissions by any particular amount.
Instead, each nation will agree to enact domestic laws to reduce carbon emissions and put forth a plan by March 31 laying out how much each one will cut after 2020 and what domestic policies it will pass to achieve the cuts.
Countries that miss the March deadline will be expected to put forth their plans by June. The plans from every country, known within the United Nations as ''Intended Nationally Determined Contributions,'' will form the basis of a sweeping new deal to be signed in Paris in 2015.
By asking countries to put forward plans dictated by their own economies and domestic politics, rather than a top-down mandate, the Lima Accord helped secure the agreement of every nation to some kind of carbon-cutting action, experts say.
But with no language requiring the significant cuts scientists say are needed to stave off the costly effects of global warming, countries can put forth weak plans that amount to little more than business as usual. Countries can even choose to ignore the deal and submit no plan at all.
''If a country doesn't submit a plan, there will be no punishment, no fine, no black U.N. helicopters showing up,'' said Jennifer Morgan, an expert on climate negotiations with the World Resources Institute, a research organization.
Instead the architects of the plan, including top White House officials, hope that the agreement will compel countries to act to avoid international condemnation.
''It relies on a lot of peer pressure,'' Ms. Morgan said.
The structure of the deal is what political scientists often call a ''name-and-shame'' plan.
Under the Lima Accord all countries must submit plans that would be posted on a United Nations website and made available to the public.
A requirement that all countries submit plans using identical metrics, for easy comparison, was deleted from the accord because of the objection of developing nations.
''What's essential for naming and shaming is that the individual contributions be comparable,'' said Robert Stavins, a professor of Environmental Economics at Harvard University.
But already, a number of research groups and universities expect to crunch the numbers of the plans, producing apples-to-apples assessments. The hope, negotiators said, is that as the numbers and commitments of each country are publicized, compared and discussed, countries will be shamed by the spotlight into proposing and enacting stronger plans.
''We see the sunlight as one of the most important parts of this,'' said Todd D. Stern, the senior climate-change negotiator for President Obama.
The motivations of the world leaders and whether they care about those assessments are essential to the success of the deal.
Mr. Obama wants to sign on to the plan because he sees his role in fighting climate change as a cornerstone of his legacy, both he and his advisers say. But whether the United States will follow through on his commitment depends on whether his successors and fellow politicians feel the same.
The president has pledged that the United States will cut emissions by as much as 28 percent by 2025. The nation can achieve some of that under new regulations of tailpipe and power plant emissions enacted by his administration.
But further laws or regulations, enacted after Mr. Obama leaves office, must be put in place for the United States to meet its pledge, experts say. Most in the emerging field of Republican presidential contenders have come out fiercely against Mr. Obama's domestic climate-change policies, and they may not be swayed by international scorn if the United States does not follow through on its Lima pledge.
In China, the political motivations for reducing emissions are more internal. China's president, Xi Jinping, has pledged that China's emissions will peak by 2030 and decline after that. To meet that goal, the Chinese government is looking into creating a national cap-and-trade system by 2016 that would force polluters to pay for their greenhouse gas emissions.
But China was driven to cut pollution largely to quell domestic unrest, as citizens protested against the increasingly bad air caused by coal power production. The previous decade of international criticism, as China surpassed the United States as the world's largest polluter, did not compel it to take domestic action.
There is much speculation about how India, the world's third largest carbon polluter, will respond. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has declared repeatedly that his top priority is economic growth and lifting people out of poverty, even if that means the construction of hundreds of new coal-fired power plants to deliver cheap electricity. Mr. Modi is also seen wanting to resist being viewed as caving in to pressure from Mr. Obama.
In New Delhi, critics have already begun pushing back against the deal.
''The burden of tackling climate change will decisively shift to developing countries, making their efforts toward poverty reduction and sustainable development difficult and expensive,'' said Sunita Narain, director of the Centre of Science and Environment, an Indian advocacy group.
However, India's environment minister, Prakash Javadekar, noted last week in Lima that climate change has already affected his nation, and that his government intends to submit a plan by June that would show how India would lower the rate at which it produces pollution.
Observers are also closely watching Russia, the world's fifth-largest polluter, for its response to the plan. President Vladimir V. Putin has publicly scoffed at the science of human-caused climate change and shown a willingness to defy international opinion.
But this week in Lima, Russian delegates said that Moscow is at work on an emissions reduction plan.
Climate change policy observers will also closely watch Australia. This year, the Australian government voted to repeal a carbon tax, and the administration of Prime Minister Tony Abbott has also eliminated its Department of Climate Change. On Sunday morning in Lima, as delegates from around the world praised the passage of the Lima Accord, the Australian delegation chose not to make remarks.
Still, the delegation did say it will submit a climate change plan to the United Nations this spring.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/world/americas/lima-climate-deal.html
LOAD-DATE: December 15, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Indian children carrying coal to a crushing machine in the state of Meghalaya. India is the world's third largest carbon polluter. (PHOTOGRAPH BY ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE -- GETTY IMAGES)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
45 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 15, 2014 Monday
Late Edition - Final
Waters Warm, and Cod Catch Ebbs in Maine
BYLINE: By MICHAEL WINES and JESS BIDGOOD; Susan Beachy contributed research.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1183 words
PORTLAND, Me. -- In the vast gulf that arcs from Massachusetts's shores to Canada's Bay of Fundy, cod was once king. It paid for fishermen's boats, fed their families and put their children through college. In one halcyon year in the mid-1980s, the codfish catch reached 25,000 tons.
Today, the cod population has collapsed. Last month, regulators effectively banned fishing for six months while they pondered what to do, and next year, fishermen will be allowed to catch just a quarter of what they could before the ban.
But a fix may not be easy. The Gulf of Maine's waters are warming -- faster than almost any ocean waters on earth, scientists say -- and fish are voting with their fins for cooler places to live. That is upending an ecosystem and the fishing industry that depends on it.
''Stocks are not necessarily showing up in the places that they have in the past,'' said Meredith Mendelson, the deputy commissioner for Maine's Department of Marine Resources, which regulates fisheries. ''We're seeing movement of stocks often north and eastward.''
Regulators this month canceled the Maine shrimp catch for the second straight year, in no small part because shrimp are fleeing for colder climes. Maine lobsters are booming, but even so, the most productive lobster fishery has shifted as much as 50 miles up the coast in the last 40 years. Black sea bass, southerly fish seldom seen here before, have become so common that this year, Maine officials moved to regulate their catch. Blue crab, a signature species in Maryland's Chesapeake Bay, are turning up off Portland.
In decades past, the gulf had warmed on average by about one degree every 21 years. In the last decade, the average has been one degree every two years. ''What we're experiencing is a warming that very few ocean ecosystems have ever experienced,'' said Andrew J. Pershing, the chief scientific officer for the Gulf of Maine Research Institute here.
A warmer ocean is not merely a matter of comfort or discomfort for creatures that dwell there. Scientists suspect that some species struggle to spawn when the temperature fluctuates. Others may spawn at the wrong time when food is scarce. Freshwater from melting arctic glaciers may be altering levels of minerals crucial to plankton, the base of the gulf's food chain.
There is a human toll as well. Cod-fishing restrictions have ravaged, at least temporarily, the community of day boats -- the ones owned by small-business fishermen, with smaller boats and incomes than corporate trawler fleets -- that defined New England for centuries.
''They've been tied up at the wharf since Nov. 13,'' the day of the cod-fishing ban, said Angela A. Sanfilippo, the president of the Gloucester Fishermen's Wives Association. The group is handing out $100 food vouchers to newly indigent fishermen. ''A good amount of our industry just became poor people,'' she said.
Joe Orlando, 60, who fishes from a Gloucester, Mass., base, said the effect of the ban was terrifying.''It's completely, completely over,'' he said. ''I got a house, kids, payments.''
But many other fishermen do not blame climate change. They blame the regulators, calling the moratorium cruel and needless, because they say their latest cod catches are actually better than in recent years. More than a few talk of a conspiracy between scientists and environmentalists to manufacture a fishing crisis that will justify their jobs.
Scientists say the truth is more prosaic: Although the gulf is generally warming -- 2012 was the hottest year on record -- the last year was cooler, and kinder to cod. Moreover, the gulf's remaining cod have congregated in deeper, colder waters in southern Maine and Massachusetts, where their abundance masks their scarcity elsewhere.
''A fisherman's job isn't to get an unbiased estimate of abundance. It's to catch fish,'' said Michael Fogarty, the chief of the ecosystem assessment program at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal agency that monitors sea life. ''The world they see is a different world than we see in the surveys.''
That said, much about warming's effect on the gulf remains unclear. Years of overfishing have winnowed some fish populations, muddling efforts to measure climate change's impact. Fishermen, scientists and regulators often disagree over whether the current changes are temporary or the new normal.
And in fact, the latest warming is not unprecedented. Weather records document a steady, if slow warming of the region's waters since the 1850s, and a 50- to-70-year climatic cycle set off unusual ocean warming in the 1950s. A similar cycle is believed to be heating up the northwest Atlantic today.
But scientists say those cyclical effects are now being turbocharged by human-caused climate change. The gulf has been at least two degrees warmer than its historical 50-degree average in each of the last five years. In 2012, it measured four degrees higher, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. If that is a clear win for sea bass, and a loss for cod, the consequences for some species are not so easily tallied.
Take lobster, Maine's iconic seafood. Thirty years ago, the best lobstering was in Knox County, the center of Maine's ragged seacoast. Today, the lobstering powerhouses are places like Stonington, an island town two counties closer to the Canadian border. ''We did pretty good lobstering -- better than the guys down east,'' said Mark Brewer, 43, from Boothbay, in the southern half of the state, referring to his hauls 20 years ago. ''Now they control all the lobsters.''
Not all, actually, for the lobster catch has skyrocketed across the gulf. Last year, lobstermen hauled in more than 63,000 tons -- more than three times what they caught just 20 years ago.
''We've had record years, year after year after year, just growing and growing,'' said Chris Radley, 40, who has lobstered for 18 years on Vinalhaven, a tiny island in midcoast Maine. ''This amount of lobsters we're seeing, I don't think there's ever been.''
One reason may be that lobsters migrate from deep to shallow waters in the spring when the temperature rises; because the gulf warms earlier than in the past, lobsters spend more time close to shore, where they can be trapped. Scientists also suspect that warming has driven away predators. But warm water is also conducive to a bacterial infection that strikes lobsters' shells. Shell disease is not a problem now in the gulf, but it lurks. The record warmth in 2012 led to an outbreak off the Maine coast, and the infection has sped the collapse of lobster populations farther south.
''It makes lobsters really ugly -- like something that crawled out of the walking dead,'' said Dr. Pershing, of the Gulf of Maine Research Institute. ''It doesn't kill them outright, but it does make them much less valuable, and it slows reproduction.''
Scientists are not yet predicting that Maine lobsters will go the way of the cod. But they say the very idea should prompt the fishermen and regulators alike to plan for change before it arrives.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/us/waters-warm-in-gulf-of-maine-and-cod-catch-ebbs.html
LOAD-DATE: December 15, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Mark Brewer preparing lobster traps on his boat in the Atlantic Ocean. The best lobster fishery has shifted as much as 50 miles up the coast in the last 40 years. (PHOTOGRAPH BY TRISTAN SPINSKI FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A13)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
46 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 15, 2014 Monday
Late Edition - Final
What's on TV Monday
BYLINE: By KATHRYN SHATTUCK
SECTION: Section C; Column 0; The Arts/Cultural Desk; Pg. 6
LENGTH: 718 words
7 P.M. (HBO) SAVING MY TOMORROW ''I used to think that no one would listen to you unless you were a grown-up, but then I realized, well, I really don't have time to grow up,'' says Ta'Kaiya Blaney, a member of the Sliammon First Nation in British Columbia and an environmental activist since the age of 8. ''And so I decided I'm going to try and fight for my future just as I am and just as the age that I am.'' Ms. Blaney is one in a chorus of children, like those above, speaking and singing out for Mother Earth in this kaleidoscopic family special, created with the American Museum of Natural History, which smushes together science and animation, readings by Tina Fey, Liam Neeson and Neil deGrasse Tyson, and music by Pharrell Williams, Ziggy Marley and They Might Be Giants to address the perils of pollution, drilling and climate change. ''We're the ancestors of the many generations to come, and you know, we have a chance to do something and to change the world for the better,'' says Ms. Blaney, now 13. ''It can make a huge difference on the future.''
7 A.M. (CUNY) ONE TO ONE Judith Wellman discusses her new book, ''Brooklyn's Promised Land: The Free Black Community of Weeksville, New York,'' about the efforts to research and preserve objects from one of the largest independent black communities in the 19th-century United States.
2:40 P.M. (Oxygen) BLACK SWAN (2010) Natalie Portman, left, in the role that earned her an Oscar, stars as Nina, a ballet dancer teetering on the verge of insanity as she tries to break out of the corps and into the dual lead of ''Swan Lake'': the Swan Queen and her villainous black swan twin. Mila Kunis is Lily, the sultry newcomer who is everything the increasingly tormented Nina is not, as their company's artistic director, Thomas (Vincent Cassel), points out. And Barbara Hershey is Nina's mommy dearest, who will stop at almost nothing to push her daughter into the limelight. The result is ''a witchy brew of madness and cunning,'' Manohla Dargis wrote in The New York Times about this film, directed by Darren Aronofsky, which also received Oscar nominations for best director, best picture and other categories.
8 P.M. (CBS) 2 BROKE GIRLS Max (Kat Dennings) and Caroline (Beth Behrs) get a bank loan to produce cupcake T-shirts to sell at high-end boutiques. In ''Mike & Molly,'' at 8:30, Molly (Melissa McCarthy) worries that she'll lose her book advance if she can't cure her writer's block.
9 P.M. (Al Jazeera America) FERGUSON: RACE AND JUSTICE IN THE U.S. In this ''Fault Lines'' report, Sebastian Walker visits Ferguson, Mo., six times from August through November as he witnesses protests and records reactions from both local residents and the police to the fatal shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson.
9 P.M. (CW) JANE THE VIRGIN The season ends as Jane (Gina Rodriguez, left) and Rafael (Justin Baldoni) worry about what Petra (Yael Grobglas) really intends to do with the baby after uncovering yet another of her secrets. Rogelio (Jaime Camil) is nominated for a best actor award and invites the Garcia women to accompany him to the ceremony, where Xo (Andrea Navedo) decides not to abandon her dreams after meeting her idol, Paulina Rubio (playing herself).
10 P.M. (13) EXTREME REALITIES: SEVERE WEATHER, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR NATIONAL SECURITY Can climate change contribute to the fall of political regimes and the strengthening of terrorist groups? Matt Damon narrates this installment of ''Journey to Planet Earth,'' which travels from Afghanistan to the Arctic to explore unexpected consequences of heat waves, hurricanes, floods and droughts.
What's Streaming Now
MARCO POLO Lorenzo Richelmy plays this 13th-century explorer who enters the court of Kublai Khan (Benedict Wong), first as a prisoner, then as a trusted adviser. Joan Chen is the khan's empress; and Zhu Zhu is the princess for whom Marco eventually falls. '' 'Marco Polo' will probably do decent business, thanks to its international cast and lowest-common-denominator aspirations,'' Neil Genzlinger wrote in The Times. ''It just won't garner the critical respect of other Netflix offerings.'' The series, he added, ''seems to have been content with a battle-and-bodice emphasis, because there's always a market for blood and sex.'' (netflix.com) KATHRYN SHATTUCK
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/arts/whats-on-tv-monday.html
LOAD-DATE: December 15, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS (PHOTOGRAPH BY HBO)
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Schedule
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
47 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Dot Earth)
December 15, 2014 Monday
In Climate Talks, Soft is the New Hard - and That's a Good Thing
BYLINE: ANDREW C. REVKIN
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 2459 words
HIGHLIGHT: Why the soft approach in the Lima climate talks is the only approach.
This piece takes the long view in gauging efforts to stem global warming and its impacts using the tools of diplomacy. It is not about the details of the outcome of climate treaty talks that concluded yesterday in Lima, Peru. (Here's what parties sought; here's the final sketchy result.)
Below, I'll explain why I see recent shifts in the process as a good thing, despite - and, in fact, because of - the lack of specifics. I'll also post some thoughts from a batch of longtime climate-policy analysts on this idea of "soft" climate diplomacy.
But first, a bit about Lima. Those seeking details on winners and losers can start with a helpful post by Mat Hope for Carbon Brief with this great headline: "Good COP, bad COP" (with COP standing for "Conference of the Parties). Brad Plumer at Vox notes the halting, incomplete nature of the outcome in a piece with the sub-heading: "Every single country now plans to tackle emissions. Sort of."
Coral Davenport's analysis in The Times todaycalls it a "name-and-shame" plan. John Upton at Climate Central has an excellent breakdown of the final hours and inevitable compromises.
Here's my guardedly optimistic view of the shift in climate treaty negotiations since the tumultuous 2009 talks in Copenhagen.
In essence, soft is the new hard.
For several years leading up to Copenhagen, hard emissions targets and timetables were essential. Anything less was a planet-wrecking cop-out. Much of the rhetoric pressing for a new agreement was framed as "sealing the deal" on a new internationally legally-binding restriction on greenhouse gas emissions building on the model represented by the dead-end 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
But it has become clear that efforts to set binding hard targets when dealing with greenhouse gases - which remain deeply linked to economic activity - were counterproductive and probably delayed progress, as a number of analysts had warned (read the Hartwell Paper for one such take).
"Soft" diplomacy (read a relevant book chapter here) is reflected in a new system for pledging national climate actions that emerged in last year's outcome in Warsaw and was refined a bit in Lima this time around: "Intended Nationally Determined Contributions," or INDCs in United Nations parlance.
The World Resources Institute has a great explainer on its website, including this section:
INDCs bring together elements of a bottom-up system-in which countries put forward their contributions in the context of their national priorities, circumstances and capabilities-with a top-down system, in which countries collectively aim to reduce global emissions enough to limit average global temperature rise to 2 degrees C, thus averting the worst impacts of climate change. As a result, INDCs can create a constructive feedback loop between national and international decision-making on climate change.
Note the critical words in the phrase, by the way:
Intended - meaning any such actions are a goal, but a non-binding one.
National - meaning each nation chooses its own mix of actions.
To understand why India, despite its fast-growing emissions, has demanded and gotten what its environment minister called "carbon space," just do a side by side comparison of the United States, where the average person's activities result in about 17 tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year, and India, where 400 million people still lack an electric light or clean cooking fuel and where per capita annual emissions are 1.9 tons per person. (And then consider how long the United States has been benefitting from fossil fuels compared to India.)
Here's a relevant (I'll let you judge if it was prescient) reflection I wrote after the 2010 round of talks in Cancun, Mexico:
I don't think all of the diplomacy and policy-making is truly meaningless - "pulling on disconnected levers," as Rockefeller University's Jesse Ausubel has described most policies related to energy.
To my mind, the sessions and negotiations, despite the zombie-like quality, do encourage, display and memorialize countries' efforts to live up to their 1992 pledge to avoid dangerous human interference with the climate system. My impression, although it's hard to prove, is that this has shifted the world slightly away from that uncomfortable line on graphs labeled "business as usual."
This kind of process can produce substantial results, as was the case in the United States when the launch of the Toxic Release Inventory, an annual public accounting of companies' emissions of a host of harmful chemicals, prompted substantial reductions without direct regulation.
Finally, here are some thoughts from others on my point that the kinds of commitments articulated in Lima were far softer than how some early headlines portrayed them - and that this isn't necessarily bad.
Robert N. Stavins, the Harvard University environmental economist with an invaluable blog, posted a superb piece on this point after returning from Lima. Here's his key point:
In a 1998 book, edited by Bill Nordhaus (Economics and Policy Issues in Climate Change), Dick Schmalensee wrote about "Greenhouse Policy Architectures and Institutions," and lamented that the Kyoto Protocol exhibited narrow scope (covering only the Annex I countries) but aggressive ambition for that small set of nations. He presciently noted that this was precisely the opposite of what would be a sensible way forward, namely broad participation, even if the initial ambition is less. Based on the 2011 Durban Platform and the 2014 Lima Call for Climate Action, it now appears that with the 2015 Paris Agreement that approach is finally being adopted.
As I predicted in my previous essay at this blog, in which I previewed the COP-20 talks, the Lima decision will surely disappoint some environmental activists. Indeed, there have already been pronouncements of failure of the Lima/Paris talks from some green groups, primarily because the talks have not and will not lead to an immediate decrease in emissions and will not prevent atmospheric temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), which has become an accepted, but essentially unachievable political goal.
As I said in my previous essay, these well-intentioned advocates mistakenly focus on the short-term change in emissions among participating countries (for example, the much-heralded 5.2% cut by the Annex I countries in the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period), when it is the long-term change in global emissions that matters.
They ignore the geographic scope of participation, and do not recognize that - given the stock nature of the problem - what is most important is long-term action. Each agreement is no more than one step to be followed by others. And most important now for ultimate success later is a sound foundation, which is what the Lima decision can provide.
Richard Ottinger, dean emeritus of Pace Law School and a longtime analyst of renewable energy policy, wrote this:
The Lima Accord was a fantastic and essential breakthrough in the climate negotiations. Having sat through previous COP negotiations where the same absolutist negative arguments were repeated by the same parties over and over again like a broken record, it was heartening to see these same parties at last reach a compromise enabling the world to start on the road to achieving the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions essential to avoid the catastrophic consequences predicted by the I.P.C.C. from failure to act. Some criticize the accord for not mandating adequate reductions now sufficient to meet the reductions prescribed by the I.P.C.C. scientists, but it was clear that only a voluntary agreement could succeed. And it was evident from the Kyoto Protocol experience that describing the agreement as "binding" not only was unachievable, but also didn't mean much.
In my view, the most disturbing shortcoming of the accord is its failure to agree on monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) of commitments to be made in Paris. Peer pressure on countries to maximize commitments and assure that commitments are met is essential to progress. The only MRV measure included was a provision providing for reporting of total commitments. Hopefully this can be strengthened in the final Paris accords.
To be sure, enormous challenges lie ahead. Recent IEA reports show that world-wide greenhouse gas emissions still are growing rather than receding and the use of coal still is dramatically rising. Considerable technological progress will have to be made in the next decade to improve and provide economic storage of solar and wind energy, bring on hydrogen fuel cells, develop the means to economically capture and sequester carbon from fossil fuel - and most important of all, to have all the countries of the world deliver on the promise of the Lima accords to make and deliver on significant commitments for greenhouse gas reductions.
As the consequences of climate change become increasingly apparent, I am optimistic that over the coming decades most of the countries of the world will see it in their interest to maximize their efforts. Even today energy efficiency and renewable energy are economically as well as environmentally advantageous in most applications. The cry that climate action will be economically disastrous is clearly fallacious. I trust that sound science and the will to survive will ultimately prevail. The Lima accords are a good and vital beginning.
David G. Victor at the University of California, San Diego, offered this reaction to I note I sent about the limits of the meaning of the word "commitment" in this process:
I think the term "commitment" has taken on an overly legalistic tone in the diplomatic negotiations. And that has allowed folks to pretend that if we just ramp up the ambition of the commitments that we can somehow force reluctant nations to do more than they would otherwise. That logic is the essence of "top down" diplomacy that has largely failed in this area for more than two decades. What I see encouraging in Lima-in reality, the roots are much deeper and trace at least to the spasms that followed Copenhagen-is the shift to more flexible bottom-up systems of pledges that are, in the Sartre sense, commitments. They are milestones in a process by which countries decarbonize their economies in ways that align with national interests. but they aren't really commitments in the formal legal sense. If you try to force this process too vigorously outside national interests then it will either fail (Copenhagen) or breed its own backlash.
This shift to a new system - decentralized, bottom up, multi-speed, polycentric, or whatever you want to call it - is a reflection of reality. Of the fact that power in the international system is diffused and some of the most pivotal countries in the process are the ones that are most wary of overly legalistic commitments (China, U.S., India among others). It is a reflection that big integrated top-down systems will collapse of their own weight and complexity and thus smaller groups (clubs) must lead they way. that is more or less the message in my Global Warming Gridlock book and I am encouraged to see it playing out. It is also the message from a paper that Bob Keohane and I wrote a few years ago in POP called "The Regime Complex for Climate Change." And lots of others are plowing these fields, as well.
One implication of this new reality is that we should be looking at different models for negotiating big package agreements. For years I have thought that trade rounds were the right model. (In 1991, I wrote a piece in Nature calling for a General Agreement on Climate Change that was in part naïve and in part on the right track). I see the "alliance" or the "umbrella" that will come out of Paris as a big tent under which lots of smaller trade-like clubs and plurilateral agreements will be stitched together. If so, we should be paying a lot more attention to the post-Paris period-to the kinds of structures and systems that will be needed to stitch together the different plurilateral agreements and efforts into something more coherent.
Another implication is that this process is a long game and that it is no longer useful to orient the efforts around goals that might have been feasible 1 to 1.5 decades ago but are fantasy today. That was part of the logic behind the piece that Charlie Kennel and I wrote in Nature back in October. Beating up on the process for not delivering on 2 degrees is unhelpful-it is like beating up on gravity because things fall to the floor.
A third implication is that if if this new process is better reflective of national interest then we should pay much more attention to national interest-to what drives countries to act. Some of that is shifting with new norms and awareness around climate change and climate impacts. Much of it, however, comes from how countries see climate intersecting with other things they care much more about, like local air pollution and energy security. That was part of the logic for why so many folks have been keen to make a big push on soot and other SLCPs [short-lived climate pollutants] -the piece that Charlie Kennel, Ram Ramanathan and I had in Foreign Affairs a couple years ago lays out the POLITICAL logic for action in that area as well as the new science showing that SLCPs are more important than previously thought.
Politically, a short-lived gas with proximate impacts on things that even reluctant governments care about (e.g., crop damage) inspires a lot more action than a globally mixed gas that has uncertain and seemingly distant impacts diffused globally. Of course, one must work SLCPs and long lived gases in tandem. But the political opportunity with SLCPs is that it can demonstrate, afresh, that the diplomatic process is actually doing things that are relevant. As that relevance and credibility rises then more firms and other key players will start to take all of that more seriously. this was the "bicycle theory" in trade negotiations-you negotiate to keep moving so that the bicycle stays upright-and is valid here as well.
A fourth implication is that as the key stakeholders come to accept this new reality I think we will find a lot of good will. Sure, this won't deliver 2 degrees. But it will turn the corner after decades of talking but not acting. We have a paper coming out on Monday in PNAS that reports some new behavioral economics research showing that this good will extends, as well, to how top policy makers think about including fairness when they make complex bargains. Fairness is a key element of climate diplomacy and a perennial stumbling block. These new results make me more optimistic that even on that front practical deals are possible. But practical means realistic.
LOAD-DATE: December 15, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
48 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 14, 2014 Sunday 8:05 PM GMT
Lima conference in danger of missing the rainforest for the trees
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 784 words
I applaud the Guardian for taking the lead in covering the UN's climate change conference in Lima, and for tackling some of its inherent contradictions. For example, your article Lima climate talks on track for record carbon footprint (theguardian.com, 10 December) highlights the conference of the parties' (Cop) surprisingly negative environmental impact this year.
Cop 20's carbon footprint is interesting as a symbol of its one step forward, two steps back modus operandi. Sadly, failure to meet any real consensus at even this superficial level means that Cop 20's carbon footprint may be its most significant contribution to the Earth's atmosphere.
There is a danger in following the Guardian's line of thinking, however, in that focusing too much on individual consumption mistakes means missing the rainforest for the trees. I spoke with a number of climate justice advocates at the people's summit on climate change in Lima, across town from its more governmental counterpart. When I asked what individual Americans could do to help out, they did not say things like ride a bicycle to work more, or buy solar panels. Their message was consistent: organise, organise, organise.
The environmental crisis is too deep for us to address with anything less than system change. Moreover, it is too easy for a wily market logic to misappropriate efforts to buy greener products. Capitalist consumerism was built on an ethos of dog-eat-dog competition, and the villainisation of collective action. To address climate change at its roots, we need to look past the kind of individualistic thinking that got us in trouble in the first place. Shawn Van ValkenburghLong Beach, CA, USA
· However well-intentioned and based on real needs of our planet, Greenpeace's action very close to the hummingbird at the Nazca lines ( Greenpeace apologises over Nazca stunt, December), an extremely fragile archaeological site, was not only absurd but also showed contempt for Peru and the way this country protects its legacy. Roberto UgasLima, Peru
· It is with real dismay that we received the news of proposed elimination of valuable legislation by the European commission to improve air quality and to boost recycling and wiser resource use in Europe and develop a circular economy ( EU air quality and recycling goals face axe, 12 December). In their bid to play to the growing tide of Euro-scepticism across Europe, the EU's president, Jean-Claude Juncker, and, vice-president, Frans Timmermans, fundamentally misjudge the mood and appetite of many in industry and civil society.
There are persuasive arguments that legislation to improve air quality and boost reuse and recycling not only save lives but create jobs and protect increasingly fragile resource supply chains.
We understand that European institutions may be feeling fragile and that reform from within is necessary, but this response from the commission picks on the wrong legislation at the wrong time. It is a short-sighted and miserable decision that risks slowing green growth, ensuring many more premature deaths from respiratory illnesses, and increases resource supply risks for European manufacturers. Please think again. Ray GeorgesonChief executive, Resource Association
· As stated in last week's report by the environmental audit committee (8 December), air pollution has become a public health crisis. It is therefore vital that the UK calls for tough new limits on air pollution at EU level. Many of the pollutants that end up in the air we breathe originate from the continent. We need stricter, clearer national limits in order for all European governments to take coordinated action that will curb pollution and clean up Europe's air.
The UK must use its influence to strengthen EU air quality targets, not weaken them, so that we can tackle the sources of pollution both at home and abroad. Catherine Bearder MEP(Liberal Democrat), Seb Dance MEP(Labour), Julie Girling MEP(Conservative)
· European commission plans to scrap programmes to clean up our air and tackle waste are deeply disturbing.
Protecting the health of its citizens and safeguarding our precious resources should be at the heart of EU policy-making. These are powerful economic moves, as well as environmental and social ones. Sacrificing these aims to benefit a few powerful, unenlightened business interests would be shameful.
Friends of the Earth has given strong support to the EU in the past because of the critical role European legislation has played in defending our planet and well-being. But that could change if the EU stops championing the environment and views its protection as a barrier to economic development. Andy AtkinsExecutive director, Friends of the Earth
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
49 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 14, 2014 Sunday 8:05 PM GMT
Lima conference in danger of missing the rainforest for the trees
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 784 words
I applaud the Guardian for taking the lead in covering the UN's climate change conference in Lima, and for tackling some of its inherent contradictions. For example, your article Lima climate talks on track for record carbon footprint (theguardian.com, 10 December) highlights the conference of the parties' (Cop) surprisingly negative environmental impact this year.
Cop 20's carbon footprint is interesting as a symbol of its one step forward, two steps back modus operandi. Sadly, failure to meet any real consensus at even this superficial level means that Cop 20's carbon footprint may be its most significant contribution to the Earth's atmosphere.
There is a danger in following the Guardian's line of thinking, however, in that focusing too much on individual consumption mistakes means missing the rainforest for the trees. I spoke with a number of climate justice advocates at the people's summit on climate change in Lima, across town from its more governmental counterpart. When I asked what individual Americans could do to help out, they did not say things like ride a bicycle to work more, or buy solar panels. Their message was consistent: organise, organise, organise.
The environmental crisis is too deep for us to address with anything less than system change. Moreover, it is too easy for a wily market logic to misappropriate efforts to buy greener products. Capitalist consumerism was built on an ethos of dog-eat-dog competition, and the villainisation of collective action. To address climate change at its roots, we need to look past the kind of individualistic thinking that got us in trouble in the first place. Shawn Van ValkenburghLong Beach, CA, USA
· However well-intentioned and based on real needs of our planet, Greenpeace's action very close to the hummingbird at the Nazca lines ( Greenpeace apologises over Nazca stunt, 11 December), an extremely fragile archaeological site, was not only absurd but also showed contempt for Peru and the way this country protects its legacy. Roberto UgasLima, Peru
· It is with real dismay that we received the news of proposed elimination of valuable legislation by the European commission to improve air quality and to boost recycling and wiser resource use in Europe and develop a circular economy ( EU air quality and recycling goals face axe, 12 December). In their bid to play to the growing tide of Euro-scepticism across Europe, the EU's president, Jean-Claude Juncker, and, vice-president, Frans Timmermans, fundamentally misjudge the mood and appetite of many in industry and civil society.
There are persuasive arguments that legislation to improve air quality and boost reuse and recycling not only save lives but create jobs and protect increasingly fragile resource supply chains.
We understand that European institutions may be feeling fragile and that reform from within is necessary, but this response from the commission picks on the wrong legislation at the wrong time. It is a short-sighted and miserable decision that risks slowing green growth, ensuring many more premature deaths from respiratory illnesses, and increases resource supply risks for European manufacturers. Please think again. Ray GeorgesonChief executive,Resource Association
· As stated in last week's report by the environmental audit committee (8 December), air pollution has become a public health crisis. It is therefore vital that the UK calls for tough new limits on air pollution at EU level. Many of the pollutants that end up in the air we breathe originate from the continent. We need stricter, clearer national limits in order for all European governments to take coordinated action that will curb pollution and clean up Europe's air.
The UK must use its influence to strengthen EU air quality targets, not weaken them, so that we can tackle the sources of pollution both at home and abroad. Catherine Bearder MEP(Liberal Democrat), Seb Dance MEP(Labour), Julie Girling MEP(Conservative)
· European commission plans to scrap programmes to clean up our air and tackle waste are deeply disturbing.
Protecting the health of its citizens and safeguarding our precious resources should be at the heart of EU policy-making. These are powerful economic moves, as well as environmental and social ones. Sacrificing these aims to benefit a few powerful, unenlightened business interests would be shameful.
Friends of the Earth has given strong support to the EU in the past because of the critical role European legislation has played in defending our planet and well-being. But that could change if the EU stops championing the environment and views its protection as a barrier to economic development. Andy AtkinsExecutive director, Friends of the Earth
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
50 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 14, 2014 Sunday 8:02 PM GMT
The Guardian view on the Lima climate change conference: a skirmish before the real battle;
There's just a year to go before the Paris summit on emissions targets
BYLINE: Editorial
SECTION: COMMENT IS FREE
LENGTH: 716 words
Another round in the UN climate change negotiations ended in Lima early on Sunday morning. It took a fortnight plus 36 extra hours of intense negotiation to achieve one small step towards the outline of an agreement for next year's all-important Paris talks. That is where, if catastrophic global warming is to be averted, a new generation of emissions targets must be agreed.
The Peru gathering was the 20th meeting of the parties to the UN climate change convention, or Cop 20 in the UN's tiresomely obfuscating language. Its ambition was deceptively modest: to start to pick a route through the jungle of conflicting interests towards perhaps the most intractable problem of global climate equity - a transparent system of measuring emissions. It followed a now familiar trajectory: optimism, then stalemate, then overrun, and, at the end, a frantic last-minute scramble before, finally, a deal. The relief on the faces of the delegates indicated how close they had come to deadlock. If they are to succeed in a year's time, there must be a revival of the old sense of urgency that delivered the flawed but ground-breaking Kyoto treaty in 1997.
The prospects for Lima looked particularly bright in the wake of the agreement between the US and China on carbon emissions that was announced by Presidents Obama and Xi in November. The reluctance of China - now the world's biggest polluter - to accept emissions targets had once given Congress an excuse not to sign up to Kyoto, and it was clear that without both powers engaged, there could never be a lasting global agreement. So it was a cause for optimism that, in the November deal, China abandoned its argument that emissions should be related to GDP - a measure that favoured developing countries - and accepted it should be on the basis of national aggregates. It also pledged to convert 20% of its energy supply to renewable sources. In turn, President Obama committed the US to doubling its rate of cuts in emissions. Neither obligation was a huge advance. China expected emissions to peak around 2030 anyway, and faces growing domestic protests about pollution. US emissions had fallen sharply with the recession. Now they are on the increase, and a Republican Congress may yet block the Obama pledge. Nonetheless the joint declaration was a recognition of their role in making the Paris negotiations a success.
So much for the optimism. In Lima, it was detail that counted. Trying to convert headline objectives into a practical plan of action soon undid any sense that victory was at hand. Yet in the end, there was progress on them all. In the context of the complexity of negotiations involving more than 190 countries, the relatively easy bit was boosting the value of the adaptation fund for small island states facing existential threat from rising sea levels and extreme weather events. Less successful was the attempt to prepare the ground for some kind of continuing "climate aid" levy on rich countries. Perhaps the most significant progress for the developed world was the acceptance by the developing countries of their responsibility for limiting future emissions. There are no longer two categories of nations, the developed countries, which must cut emissions, and the developing countries, which need not. What the negotiators called the firewall between the two has been breached. But the biggest, most difficult and ultimately most important challenge is devising an acceptable, transparent route to measuring emissions, in order to facilitate some kind of global monitoring of targets. And that remains a work in progress.
These negotiations will only get more demanding in the coming year. Europe and the US continue to wrestle with troubled economies, reluctant to risk recovery by increasing costs for business and industry, or to burden consumers by demanding more for adaptation. The fall in the price of oil removes one big incentive for the developed world to invest in renewables and greater energy efficiency.
Yet, in its latest synthesis of climate change science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found the evidence of human influence on the climate system is clear and that warming is increasingly likely to be irreversible. It is not too late to make a difference, and this is no time to lose heart.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
51 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 14, 2014 Sunday 7:34 PM GMT
The Guardian view on the Lima climate change conference: a skirmish before the real battle;
There's just a year to go before the Paris summit on emissions targets
BYLINE: Editorial
SECTION: COMMENT IS FREE
LENGTH: 709 words
Another round in the UN climate change negotiations ended in Lima early on Sunday morning. It took a fortnight and two extra days of intense negotiation to achieve one small step towards the outline of an agreement for next year's all-important Paris talks. That is where, if catastrophic global warming is to be averted, a new generation of emissions targets must be agreed.
The Peru gathering was the 20th meeting of the parties to the UN climate change convention, or Cop 20 in the UN's tiresomely obfuscating language. Its ambition was deceptively modest: to start to pick a route through the jungle of conflicting interests towards perhaps the most intractable problem of global climate equity, a transparent system of measuring emissions. It followed a now familiar trajectory: optimism, then stalemate, then overrun and at the end a frantic last-minute scramble before, finally, a deal. The relief on the faces of the delegates indicated how close they had come to complete failure. If they are to succeed in a year's time, there must be a revival of the old sense of urgency that delivered the flawed but ground-breaking Kyoto treaty in 1997.
The prospects for Lima looked particularly bright in the wake of the agreement between the US and China on carbon emissions that was announced by Presidents Obama and Xi in November. Once, the reluctance of China - now the world's biggest polluter - to accept emissions targets gave Congress an excuse not to sign up to Kyoto. Without them both engaged, there could never be a real global agreement. So it was a cause for optimism that, in the November deal, China abandoned its argument that emissions should be estimated on the basis of population - a system that favoured developing countries - and accepted it should be on the basis of national aggregates. In turn, President Obama committed the US to tougher reductions in emissions, bringing it closer to the EU target. Neither obligation was a huge advance. China expected emissions to peak around 2030 anyway, and faces growing domestic protests about pollution. The US has benefited from the recent exploitation of less-polluting shale gas instead of coal, and a Republican Congress may yet block the Obama pledge. Nonetheless the joint declaration was a recognition of their role in making the Paris negotiations a success.
So much for the optimism. In Lima, it was detail that counted. Trying to convert headline objectives into a practical plan of action soon undid any sense that victory was at hand. Yet in the end, there was progress on each. In the context of the complexity of negotiations involving more than 190 countries, the relatively easy bit was boosting the value of the adaptation fund for small island states facing existential threat from rising sea levels and extreme weather events. Less successful was the attempt to prepare the ground for some kind of continuing "climate aid" levy on rich countries. Perhaps the most significant progress for the developed world was the acceptance by the developing countries of their responsibility for limiting future emissions. There are no longer two categories of nations, the developed countries, which must cut emissions, and the developing countries, which need not. What the negotiators called the firewall between the two has been breached. But the biggest, most difficult and ultimately most important challenge is devising an acceptable, transparent route to measuring emissions, in order to facilitate some kind of global monitoring of targets. And that remains a work in progress.
These negotiations will only get more demanding in the coming year. Europe and the US continue to wrestle with troubled economies, reluctant to risk recovery by increasing costs for business and industry, or to burden consumers by demanding more for adaptation. The fall in the price of oil removes one big incentive for the developed world to invest in renewables and greater energy efficiency.
Yet, in its latest synthesis of climate change science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found the evidence of human influence on the climate system is clear and that warming is increasingly likely to be irreversible. It is not too late to make a difference, but this is no time to lose heart.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
52 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 14, 2014 Sunday 6:56 PM GMT
Nine things you need to know about polar sea ice;
Ice in the Antarctic hits a record high, but that doesn't make up for the Arctic sea ice, which is melting at unprecedented rates. Here's why
BYLINE: Emily Gertz
SECTION: VITAL SIGNS
LENGTH: 1497 words
2014 is set to be one of the hottest years on record. This comes at a time when Arctic summer sea ice melted to its sixth-lowest extent this year : 1.9m square miles. 2012 still holds the record, with just 1.32m square miles of sea ice by the summer's end.
At roughly the same time, Antarctic winter sea ice hit a record high of 7.76m square miles. This seeming contradiction in polar ice conditions has armed the arguments of global warming deniers: while the climate might be changing, the results at a global scale seem to be "evening out", right? If the total amount of ice on the planet's surface remains the same, does it really matter where it is?
The short answer is yes. More sea ice around Antarctica does not make up for less in the Arctic Ocean. Here's what you need to know:
What is sea ice?
Sea ice is frozen seawater that forms and floats on the surface of a polar ocean. It increases during that pole's autumn and winter, while breaking up and melting during the spring and summer.
How is sea ice different from glaciers?
Glaciers are masses of freshwater ice that cover land. They grow when precipitation hits the surface of the ice and freezes, while at lower depths a glacier can be melting year-round due to geothermal heat.
The enormous glaciers covering Greenland and the Antarctic continent are so big that they're termed "ice sheets."
How is Arctic sea ice different from Antarctic sea ice?
The Arctic consists of an ocean surrounded relatively closely by land, while Antarctica is the inverse: a polar continent ringed by a massive sea, the Southern Ocean.
Around Antarctica, however, sea ice conditions have historically been more changeable because there is no land blocking the ice from spreading out across the Southern Ocean and encountering warmer winds and waters around its edges.
"It's like the difference between a room and a wall," says Ted Scambos, a lead scientist with the US National Snow and Ice Data Center. "In the Antarctic there's one wall, but in the Arctic there's four walls" surrounding the Arctic Ocean.
Before human-propelled climate change began to warm the Arctic, the summer and winter extents of Arctic sea ice were fairly consistent from year to year, and a good deal of Arctic sea ice would endure over multiple years to form a resilient, year-round layer of ice over the ocean, helping to keep temperatures cool.
That has changed in the past decade. While more than half the Arctic ice pack used to be multi-year ice, says Julienne Stroeve, a research scientist at the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, "after 2007 and 2012, big ice loss years, about 70% of the ice pack was first-year, and the rest multi-year.
"In 2013, less than 5% of Arctic sea ice was five years or older," Stroeve says. "In 1980s-90s, 20% or more was five years or older."
What's causing the unusual decrease in Arctic sea ice?
Climate change is increasing temperatures in the world's far north at a faster rate than in lower latitudes (an effect sometimes called " Arctic amplification "). Over the past half-century, average temperatures in the contiguous 48 US states have increased by an average of 1.7F (1C) above historic norms, while those across Alaska have gone up an average of 3.4F(2C) year-round, and 6.3F(4C) in winter.
As warming conditions over the past few decades have intensified summer melting of the Arctic ice cap, more of the ocean's surface has been exposed to the sun's rays. When solar rays hit sea ice, the light-colored ice reflects much of it back into space; this effect is called "albedo." Open, dark Arctic Ocean water absorbs a lot more solar energy than it reflects, however, warming the sea water. This makes it harder for new ice to form in the fall and winter, and for multi-year ice to last through the summer.
What happens when there is less Arctic sea ice?
For the estimated 4 million people living and working above the Arctic Circle, the effects of less sea ice have been profound and life-altering.
The decrease and thinning of protective sea ice has exposed coastal towns to enormously destructive waves and winds. The resulting coastal erosion is so severe that nearly 200 native villages have little choice but to move - sometimes from lands that their communities have lived upon for hundreds of years.
Shipping and tourism in the Arctic are increasing as disappearing sea ice allows a reliably clear route across the northernmost waters to open earlier in the spring and close later in the fall. Many people are looking eagerly to increased economic opportunities in the Arctic, since a polar shipping route cuts travel time between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans by 40%.
Polar bears, narwhals and Pacific walruses are just some of the Arctic wildlife evolved to depend upon sea ice as a platform for resting or hunting, or protecting themselves and their offspring from predators. With temperatures warming and ice in decline, some are facing existential challenges in the wild. But more southerly species may be able to take advantage of less ice cover to expand their ranges - orcas are already doing so.
Does less Arctic sea ice affect the weather?
"It's not an easy thing to unravel, but there is a lot of evidence coming into play that amplified warming in the Arctic is having an impact on weather patterns in lower latitudes," says Stroeve.
There is a lot of research going on to better answer this question, according to Tom Peterson of the US National Climatic Data Center, who told reporters on a November press call about the climate that "we've had a lot of studies going on about the potential influence of lack of Arctic sea ice on events around the world", but must "wait for the peer-reviewed science to be done before we can say anything" conclusive.
With average global temperatures on the rise, why is there so much Antarctic sea ice in winter?
"In general, because of the geography, with the Antarctic continent as the center of a very broad expanse of ocean and the southern end of all the globe's other major oceans, there's a natural high degree of variability to Antarctic sea ice," Scambos says, with huge year-to-year changes in the extent of Antarctic sea ice more common than in the Arctic.
Scientists are still exploring all the factors that affect Antarctic sea ice, however - including whether hotter temperatures are actually contributing to the recent record-setting amount of winter ice.
It's well established that as climate change increases subsurface ocean temperatures, Scambos says, the glaciers flowing off the edge of Antarctica into the Southern Ocean are melting at an increasing rate. This melt adds billions of tons of fresh water to the surrounding seawater. Since "in the ocean density controls motion", Scambos says, and fresh water is less dense than seawater, the slightly freshened seawater at the foot of the glaciers rises to the surface of the coastal waters - and then sits there.
"So now we have a bigger and more stable 'puddle' of water at the surface of the ocean that's slightly fresher than it used to be, and less dense", Scambos says, than the waters surrounding it, "and more conducive to forming sea ice."
Does this mean that climate change isn't affecting the south pole?
Sorry, it does not. This swing in southern sea ice, whether natural or caused by global warming, is happening in parallel with clear signals of climate change in the region. Antarctica "is showing a warming air temperature trend on the continent by just about every recent analysis there is", Scambos says, and "ocean-driven melting around Antarctic is on the increase."
Winds in Antarctica have changed as well, he says, in ways that are consistent with what scientists expect to see, thanks to both the global increase in greenhouse-gas pollution and the regional loss of ozone in the atmosphere.
Will having more sea ice in the Antarctic make up for having less in the Arctic?
No. Increased ice around Antarctica will not help a resident of the Arctic Circle whose coastal land is eroding, or an Arctic animal species that depends upon ice for feeding, resting or protection.
There is also no trade-off on a global scale. "In the Antarctic, we're adding ice to the fringe of a polar cap that was already ice-covered during this period of time," Scambos says. This slight increase to south polar albedo does not balance out the decreased albedo in the Arctic caused by that region's loss of snow and ice cover. And it can't mitigate the effects a warming Arctic may already be having on the weather and climate systems of the northern hemisphere.
The Vital Signs platform is funded by Avery Dennison, Domtar and Chiquita. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled "brought to you by". Find out more here .
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
53 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 14, 2014 Sunday 6:56 PM GMT
Nine things you need to know about polar sea ice;
Ice in the Antarctic hits a record high, but that doesn't make up for the Arctic sea ice, which is melting at unprecedented rates. Here's why
BYLINE: Emily Gertz
SECTION: VITAL SIGNS
LENGTH: 1497 words
2014 is set to be one of the hottest years on record. This comes at a time when Arctic summer sea ice melted to its sixth-lowest extent this year : 1.9m square miles. 2012 still holds the record, with just 1.32m square miles of sea ice by the summer's end.
At roughly the same time, Antarctic winter sea ice hit a record high of 7.76m square miles. This seeming contradiction in polar ice conditions has armed the arguments of global warming deniers: while the climate might be changing, the results at a global scale seem to be "evening out", right? If the total amount of ice on the planet's surface remains the same, does it really matter where it is?
The short answer is yes. More sea ice around Antarctica does not make up for less in the Arctic Ocean. Here's what you need to know:
What is sea ice?
Sea ice is frozen seawater that forms and floats on the surface of a polar ocean. It increases during that pole's autumn and winter, while breaking up and melting during the spring and summer.
How is sea ice different from glaciers?
Glaciers are masses of freshwater ice that cover land. They grow when precipitation hits the surface of the ice and freezes, while at lower depths a glacier can be melting year-round due to geothermal heat.
The enormous glaciers covering Greenland and the Antarctic continent are so big that they're termed "ice sheets."
How is Arctic sea ice different from Antarctic sea ice?
The Arctic consists of an ocean surrounded relatively closely by land, while Antarctica is the inverse: a polar continent ringed by a massive sea, the Southern Ocean.
Around Antarctica, however, sea ice conditions have historically been more changeable because there is no land blocking the ice from spreading out across the Southern Ocean and encountering warmer winds and waters around its edges.
"It's like the difference between a room and a wall," says Ted Scambos, a lead scientist with the US National Snow and Ice Data Center. "In the Antarctic there's one wall, but in the Arctic there's four walls" surrounding the Arctic Ocean.
Before human-propelled climate change began to warm the Arctic, the summer and winter extents of Arctic sea ice were fairly consistent from year to year, and a good deal of Arctic sea ice would endure over multiple years to form a resilient, year-round layer of ice over the ocean, helping to keep temperatures cool.
That has changed in the past decade. While more than half the Arctic ice pack used to be multi-year ice, says Julienne Stroeve, a research scientist at the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, "after 2007 and 2012, big ice loss years, about 70% of the ice pack was first-year, and the rest multi-year.
"In 2013, less than 5% of Arctic sea ice was five years or older," Stroeve says. "In 1980s-90s, 20% or more was five years or older."
What's causing the unusual decrease in Arctic sea ice?
Climate change is increasing temperatures in the world's far north at a faster rate than in lower latitudes (an effect sometimes called " Arctic amplification "). Over the past half-century, average temperatures in the contiguous 48 US states have increased by an average of 1.7F (1C) above historic norms, while those across Alaska have gone up an average of 3.4F(2C) year-round, and 6.3F(4C) in winter.
As warming conditions over the past few decades have intensified summer melting of the Arctic ice cap, more of the ocean's surface has been exposed to the sun's rays. When solar rays hit sea ice, the light-colored ice reflects much of it back into space; this effect is called "albedo." Open, dark Arctic Ocean water absorbs a lot more solar energy than it reflects, however, warming the sea water. This makes it harder for new ice to form in the fall and winter, and for multi-year ice to last through the summer.
What happens when there is less Arctic sea ice?
For the estimated 4 million people living and working above the Arctic Circle, the effects of less sea ice have been profound and life-altering.
The decrease and thinning of protective sea ice has exposed coastal towns to enormously destructive waves and winds. The resulting coastal erosion is so severe that nearly 200 native villages have little choice but to move - sometimes from lands that their communities have lived upon for hundreds of years.
Shipping and tourism in the Arctic are increasing as disappearing sea ice allows a reliably clear route across the northernmost waters to open earlier in the spring and close later in the fall. Many people are looking eagerly to increased economic opportunities in the Arctic, since a polar shipping route cuts travel time between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans by 40%.
Polar bears, narwhals and Pacific walruses are just some of the Arctic wildlife evolved to depend upon sea ice as a platform for resting or hunting, or protecting themselves and their offspring from predators. With temperatures warming and ice in decline, some are facing existential challenges in the wild. But more southerly species may be able to take advantage of less ice cover to expand their ranges - orcas are already doing so.
Does less Arctic sea ice affect the weather?
"It's not an easy thing to unravel, but there is a lot of evidence coming into play that amplified warming in the Arctic is having an impact on weather patterns in lower latitudes," says Stroeve.
There is a lot of research going on to better answer this question, according to Tom Peterson of the US National Climatic Data Center, who told reporters on a November press call about the climate that "we've had a lot of studies going on about the potential influence of lack of Arctic sea ice on events around the world", but must "wait for the peer-reviewed science to be done before we can say anything" conclusive.
With average global temperatures on the rise, why is there so much Antarctic sea ice in winter?
"In general, because of the geography, with the Antarctic continent as the center of a very broad expanse of ocean and the southern end of all the globe's other major oceans, there's a natural high degree of variability to Antarctic sea ice," Scambos says, with huge year-to-year changes in the extent of Antarctic sea ice more common than in the Arctic.
Scientists are still exploring all the factors that affect Antarctic sea ice, however - including whether hotter temperatures are actually contributing to the recent record-setting amount of winter ice.
It's well established that as climate change increases subsurface ocean temperatures, Scambos says, the glaciers flowing off the edge of Antarctica into the Southern Ocean are melting at an increasing rate. This melt adds billions of tons of fresh water to the surrounding seawater. Since "in the ocean density controls motion", Scambos says, and fresh water is less dense than seawater, the slightly freshened seawater at the foot of the glaciers rises to the surface of the coastal waters - and then sits there.
"So now we have a bigger and more stable 'puddle' of water at the surface of the ocean that's slightly fresher than it used to be, and less dense", Scambos says, than the waters surrounding it, "and more conducive to forming sea ice."
Does this mean that climate change isn't affecting the south pole?
Sorry, it does not. This swing in southern sea ice, whether natural or caused by global warming, is happening in parallel with clear signals of climate change in the region. Antarctica "is showing a warming air temperature trend on the continent by just about every recent analysis there is", Scambos says, and "ocean-driven melting around Antarctic is on the increase."
Winds in Antarctica have changed as well, he says, in ways that are consistent with what scientists expect to see, thanks to both the global increase in greenhouse-gas pollution and the regional loss of ozone in the atmosphere.
Will having more sea ice in the Antarctic make up for having less in the Arctic?
No. Increased ice around Antarctica will not help a resident of the Arctic Circle whose coastal land is eroding, or an Arctic animal species that depends upon ice for feeding, resting or protection.
There is also no trade-off on a global scale. "In the Antarctic, we're adding ice to the fringe of a polar cap that was already ice-covered during this period of time," Scambos says. This slight increase to south polar albedo does not balance out the decreased albedo in the Arctic caused by that region's loss of snow and ice cover. And it can't mitigate the effects a warming Arctic may already be having on the weather and climate systems of the northern hemisphere.
The Vital Signs platform is funded by Avery Dennison, Domtar and Chiquita. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled "brought to you by". Find out more here .
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
54 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 14, 2014 Sunday 6:38 PM GMT
Hu tieu, a Vietnamese dish spiced with prosperity and climate change;
The rice noodle soup, a specialty of the Mekong Delta, tells the tale of the changing economy and environment in the region. Is Vietnam becoming a victim of our appetites?
BYLINE: George Black
SECTION: VITAL SIGNS
LENGTH: 1630 words
On a visit last month to the town of My Tho, the capital of the Tien Giang province in Vietnam's Mekong Delta, I found a riverside restaurant that served the local specialty, a dish called hu tieu. It's a delicious soup, dense with stretchy rice noodles and topped with succulent locally farmed shrimp.
These two ingredients of hu tieu have set the delta on a remarkable path to prosperity. In provinces like Tien Giang and neighboring Ben Tre, as one drives east toward the South China Sea, the landscape is stitched together with fertile rice paddies and brackish ponds teeming with shrimp. This transformation has taken place in just one generation.
As late as 1990, 15 years after the Vietnam war ended, the country faced the threat of famine, and rice was strictly rationed. Now, thanks to the government's "rice first" policy, many farmers get three crops a year, including one in the dry season, from November to April. Earnings from this year's harvests have broken all previous records. Last year, Vietnam overtook Thailand as the world's leading rice exporter, with 90% of the export crop grown in the Mekong Delta.
Meanwhile, tempted by the big profits reaped from aquaculture over the past couple of decades, many other farmers have converted their rice fields into shrimp farms. In the villages of the delta, mud-and-thatch homes have given way to sturdy new buildings with cement walls and metal roofs - and even the occasional flashy mansion belonging to someone who has made a killing from shrimp.
While the biggest buyers of Vietnamese rice are other Asian countries, it's mainly American and European diners who drive the demand for shrimp, which earned Vietnam $4bn last year. Americans eat about 4lbs of shrimp a year per person, and last year the United States displaced Japan for the first time as Vietnam's biggest export market.
This drive for prosperity, and the wealth that comes from feeding foreign appetites, is at risk of becoming a victim of its own success. A growing number of scientists and economists say that without major changes in the way the land is used, the boom is unsustainable. And the brackish water in those shrimp ponds hints at the reason. The relentless pressure to earn more money and boost development is both intensified by climate change and worsening its impact.
The Mekong Delta is more vulnerable to encroaching oceans than almost any other agricultural region in the world. Climate change is already a palpable reality. "We're seeing more rain in the monsoon season, with worse flooding, and less in the dry season, with more severe droughts," said Dao Trong Tu, director of the Center for Sustainable Water Resources Development and Adaptation to Climate Change in Hanoi and formerly Vietnam's representative on the multinational Mekong River Commission.
In provinces such as Tien Giang and Ben Tre, he said, saltwater is steadily moving inland from the ocean, threatening the fertility of the soil. Bursts of extreme heat, meanwhile, are becoming longer and more intense. According to Ben Tre's provincial meteorological station, average temperatures have risen by 0.5C since 1977, when record keeping began.
The growing salinity of previously fertile rice-growing land is also a man-made problem, said Andrew Wyatt, Vietnam country representative of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and an expert on land use in the Ben Tre province.
In his office in Ho Chi Minh City, he projected a Google Earth image of the delta on a large screen, showing me the changes occurring along the coastal strip of Ben Tre. In some areas there was a green swath of mangrove forests hundreds of yards wide, a vital but tenuous buffer against storm surges from the South China Sea and the upstream flow of salt. But as he moved the cursor south, he pointed out many areas where huge areas of mangrove had thinned or vanished.
He paused at one point to zoom in closer on one section of the Soc Trang province. There was nothing left there but a fragmented ribbon of forest. On the landward side was an immense checkerboard of rectangular, industrial-scale shrimp ponds, the white spray from their aerators clearly visible in the satellite image."Originally it was rice that was pushing into these areas," Wyatt said, "but in more recent years it's been shrimp."
As farmers cut down the mangrove buffer to make way for aquaculture, storm surges and increasingly frequent typhoons can swamp the embankments that used to shield farm fields from saltwater. In some parts of the delta, the shoreline is now being pushed back by as much as 100 meters (109 yards) a year.
Canals, dikes and sluice gates, some of them dating back to the French colonial era, no longer keep saltwater out of the rice fields they were built to protect. "Those salinity control structures no longer work," he said. "The sluice gates have been opened permanently, and because they're no longer used, they've rusted in place."
It's no wonder so many farmers have switched to shrimp. Not only can shrimp thrive in saltier water - and farmers are increasingly introducing more salt-tolerant species, such as white-legged shrimp - but earnings from shrimp can be five or seven times higher than from a comparable acreage of rice, according to Ngo Thi Phuong Lam, an agriculture expert at Vietnam National University in Ho Chi Minh City. Despite the high start-up costs, the lure of quick profits continues to prove irresistible.
From an environmental point of view, all these developments have created a vicious cycle of pressures. Salinity threatens rice production. Strongly influenced by retailers and advertisers, farmers anxious to keep up their yields further sully freshwater supplies by applying profligate amounts of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. (Ho Van Chien of the Southern Regional Plant Protection Center in Tien Giang calls this "emotional buying.")
These practices are not only unsustainable; they also threaten export revenues. Contaminated rice has already provoked temporary import bans by China and Japan, and American rice growers are up in arms because of what they say is inadequate inspection of rice from Vietnam by the Food and Drug Administration.
The shrimp boom, meanwhile, produces its own cycle of threats. Intensive farming, especially of white-legged shrimp, leads to grossly overcrowded ponds; more waste excretion; increased risk of disease; heavier use of chemicals, feed, and antibiotics; and slipshod quality controls.
In 2013, disease swept through shrimp farms in several Asian countries, including Vietnam, and the resulting decline in production caused export prices to skyrocket. US restaurant chain Red Lobster reported a 35% increase in the price it was paying for imported shrimp. Although the disease itself isn't caused by climate change, Wyatt said, heat makes the shrimp more vulnerable to it. "Higher water temperatures stress the shrimp, and high temperature extremes have caused mass die-offs," he said.
The government is acutely aware of the threat of climate change and environmental degradation, said Dao Trong Tu, but the demand for development creates a huge conflict. One problem, he explained, is that the Delta's 13 provinces set their own economic targets - and furiously compete to attract new investment and boost exports, driving the growth of more rice and more shrimp. And all the time the oceans continue to inch steadily upward. With most of the Mekong Delta no more than five feet above sea level, as many as a million people are likely to lose their homes and their livelihoods by the middle of the century.
Can consumers help make the Vietnamese shrimp industry more sustainable? International organizations such as the Rainforest Alliance have made great headway in certifying sustainably grown and "fair trade" coffee. The Marine Stewardship Council has certified more than 20,000 seafood products as "fish to eat." Now the certification movement is turning its attention to aquaculture.
The Aquaculture Stewardship Council, which was created by WWF (formerly the World Wildlife Fund) and the Dutch Sustainable Trading Initiative, is now in the process of certifying its first Vietnamese shrimp farm, and a handful have already been certified by GlobalGap, a consortium of European retailers. Once shrimp with this stamp of approval start arriving in US and European markets, consumer awareness may begin to give added impetus to more sustainable forms of production in Vietnam.
When I got back to New York, I found a recipe for hu tieu and went down to the small section of Chinatown known as Little Saigon to shop for imported shrimp and the right kind of stretchy rice noodles. But I wondered, as I prepared the dish for my kids, whether I should serve it with a warning - that if one day they want to fix it for their own children, they may have a harder time finding the ingredients.
For many years the executive editor of OnEarth magazine, George Black has written extensively on climate change, energy policy, and the environment in Asia, Latin America and the United States. He is a frequent contributor to the newyorker.com.
This story was produced by the Food and Environment Reporting Network, an independent non-profit news organization focusing on food, agriculture and environmental health.
The Vital Signs platform is funded by Avery Dennison, Domtar and Chiquita. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled "brought to you by". Find out more here .
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
55 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 14, 2014 Sunday 4:21 PM GMT
Lima climate change talks reach global warming agreement;
Deal would for first time commit all countries - including developing nations - to cutting emissionsFull text of the deal (pdf)
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg in Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 896 words
International negotiators at the Lima climate change talks have agreed on a plan to fight global warming that would for the first time commit all countries to cutting their greenhouse gas emissions.
The plan, agreed at United Nations talks on Sunday, was hailed as an important first step towards a climate change deal due to be finalised in Paris next year. The proposals call on countries to reveal how they will cut carbon pollution, ideally by March next year.
"As a text it's not perfect, but it includes the positions of the parties," said Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, the Peruvian environment minister, who presided over the talks.
However, negotiators acknowledged they had put off the most difficult decisions for later.
And with 2014 on course to be the hottest year on record, campaigners warned the plan was far too weak to limit warming to the internationally agreed limit of 2C above pre-industrial levels, or to protect poor countries from climate change.
"It's definitely watered down from what we expected," said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
They also warned negotiators had left too many contentious issues unresolved before the deadline for reaching a deal in Paris. "The countdown clock to Paris is now ticking. Countries had the chance to give themselves a head start on the road to Paris but instead have missed the gun and now need to play catch up," said Mohammed Adow, Christian Aid's senior climate change advisor.
But after a difficult negotiation - which over-ran by two days- officials said they were satisfied with the outcome.
"It was contentious along the way but it fundamentally accomplished what we wanted it to," Todd Stern, the US State Department's climate change envoy, said.
The five-page text agreed on Sunday - now officially known as the Lima Call for Climate Action - represents the embryonic phase of the deal due to be delivered in Paris.
As sketched out in Lima, all countries, rising economies as well as rich countries would pledge action on climate change.
Wealthy countries would help developing countries fight climate change, by investing in clean energy technology or offering climate aid.
Countries already threatened by climate change - such as small island states which face being swallowed up by rising seas - were promised a "loss and damage" programme of financial aid.
The all-inclusive nature of the emissions cuts constitutes a break with one of the defining principles of the last 20 years of climate talks - that wealthy countries should carry the burden of cutting carbon dioxide emissions.
"I think for the first time ever the world can contemplate a global deal applicable to all and Lima has helped that process," the UK's energy and climate change secretary, Ed Davey, said.
If all goes well, China, whose emissions have overtaken the US, will as part of the agreement formally pledge to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as will India, Brazil and other rising economies.
But much remains uncertain about the prospects of a strong deal emerging from Paris - not least because of the problems that arose during the negotiations in Lima.
The Lima negotiations had opened on 1 December amid a spirit of optimism following an agreement last month between the US and China to cut carbon pollution.
But it soon became apparent that the US-China deal on its own would have no effect on bridging the perennial dividing line of climate negotiations - the responsibility for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The talks over-ran by two days because of clashes over which countries should carry the burden of fighting climate change.
There were also disputes over climate finance. Wealthy countries were accused of failing to live up to their earlier promises of mobilising billions to help developing countries fight climate change.
But after a day of brinkmanship on Saturday - with Stern warning of a "major breakdown" - the deal was done.
"We got what we wanted," Prakash Javadekar, India's environment minister, said.
But much now remains to be done if the broad outlines agreed at Lima are to materialise in a full-fledged climate deal.
The US, China, and the European Union have already come forward with pledges for cutting greenhouse gas emissions after 2020.
Under the plan, countries are due to come forward by March 2015 with their proposed emissions reductions targets.
The United Nations would then weigh up those pledges and determine whether the collective action was enough to limit warming to 2C.
But much remains vague or poorly defined. The countries put off decisions about the legal structure of the agreement, and deferred decisions about ensuring a flow of finance to developing countries.
The biggest issue left unresolved for Paris is the burden for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The draft text retains language of "common but differentiated responsibilities" that has over the years given developing countries a pass on cutting emissions. That language remains in the text although with a rider "in light of different national circumstances". Stern acknowledged to reporters the issue was likely to come up again at Paris.
And the text adopted on Sunday no longer makes it mandatory for countries to provide detailed information about their prospect reductions targets.
Campaigners said that would make it increasingly difficult to be sure the deal would manage to keep warming within the 2 degree threshold.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
56 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 14, 2014 Sunday 11:47 AM GMT
Lima climate change talks end in agreement - but who won?;
This weekend's deal on cutting greenhouse gas emissions gave everyone at the talks in Peru what they came for - sort of
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg in Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 555 words
There was one thing above all others that wealthy countries wanted out of the Lima negotiations, and that was a method of accounting for emissions cuts.
The issue that mattered above all to developing countries was deciding who should carry the burden of emissions cuts, and getting the money flowing for climate aid.
For small island states, acknowledgement of "loss and damage" due to climate change was critical.
All three contingents got what they wanted - sort of.
The deal that was reached late on Saturday afternoon was critical in keeping the talks on track. The US and the European Union had pushed hard for a text that would require countries to offer upfront information about the nature of their pledges to cut emissions - "clarity, transparency and understanding".
Wealthy countries also wanted a review process to ensure the pledges when they all come in would be enough to keep the world on course for two degrees of warming.
But China especially had balked at providing detailed accounting of its emissions reductions plans, arguing that an outside review would amount to an affront to its sovereignty.
The deal that emerged early on Sunday found a solution by changing a single word - "shall" to "may" - easing China's concerns about outside interference.
However, the US and EU still had the detailed language about pledges - and claimed it as a win.
In the more than 20 years of climate change negotiations, developing countries have held on hard to the idea that it was the burden of wealthy countries to deal with climate change. In the parlance of UN climate negotiations, it's called the firewall. America in particular has been determined to break down the wall, arguing that it is time for all countries to fight climate change.
"The firewall issue is the most difficult issue. It is what the history of climate change negotiations has bequeathed to us. Countries that have grown and become wealthy cleave to it because it means they don't have to do what other countries have to do," said Ed Davey, the UK's energy and climate change secretary.
It's not entirely clear the firewall has gone. The text includes the phrase "common but differentiated responsibilities", the old official UN designation, but also a new phrase "in light of different national circumstances", which reflects the current reality of China and other giants.
Michael Jacobs, who served as climate change adviser to former UK prime minister Gordon Brown, said: "There aren't two kinds of countries any more and that's good."
In some ways, however, it's the small island states that can claim the biggest win - by securing the inclusion of the words "loss and damage".
The phrase was introduced into UN discussions two years ago to draw attention to the fate of those island states drowned by rising seas.
However, rich countries are uncomfortable with the designation because they fear it will open up a whole new category of financial obligation.
In the draft circulated earlier on Saturday, there was no mention of the words at all. "It's like a slap in the face," said Saleemul Huq, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Environment and Development.
In the final text, "loss and damage" was back in, but without any specific commitments from rich countries.
Still, the leader of Tuvalu told the negotiations he could live with the deal.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
57 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 14, 2014 Sunday 11:37 AM GMT
Lima climate change talks reach global warming agreement;
Deal would for first time commit all countries - including developing nations - to cutting emissionsFull text of the deal (pdf)
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg in Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 869 words
International negotiators at the Lima climate change talks have agreed on a plan to fight global warming that would for the first time commit all countries to cutting their greenhouse gas emissions.
The plan, agreed at United Nations talks on Sunday, was hailed as an important first step towards a climate change deal due to be finalised in Paris next year.
"As a text it's not perfect, but it includes the positions of the parties," said Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, the Peruvian environment minister, who presided over the talks.
However, negotiators acknowledged they had put off the most difficult decisions for later.
Campaigners said the plan was far too weak to limit warming to the internationally agreed limit of 2C above pre-industrial levels, or to protect poor countries from climate change.
"It's definitely watered down from what we expected," said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
They also warned negotiators had left too many contentious issues unresolved before the deadline for reaching a deal in Paris. "The countdown clock to Paris is now ticking. Countries had the chance to give themselves a head start on the road to Paris but instead have missed the gun and now need to play catch up," said Mohammed Adow, Christian Aid's senior climate change advisor.
But after a difficult negotiation - which over-ran by two days- officials said they were satisfied with the outcome.
"It was contentious along the way but it fundamentally accomplished what we wanted it to," Todd Stern, the US State Department's climate change envoy, said.
The five-page text agreed on Sunday - now officially known as the Lima Call for Climate Action - represents the embryonic phase of the deal due to be delivered in Paris.
As sketched out in Lima, all countries, rising economies as well as rich countries would pledge action on climate change.
Wealthy countries would help developing countries fight climate change, by investing in clean energy technology or offering climate aid.
Countries already threatened by climate change - such as small island states which face being swallowed up by rising seas - were promised a "loss and damage" programme of financial aid.
The all-inclusive nature of the emissions cuts constitutes a break with one of the defining principles of the last 20 years of climate talks - that wealthy countries should carry the burden of cutting carbon dioxide emissions.
"I think for the first time ever the world can contemplate a global deal applicable to all and Lima has helped that process," the UK's energy and climate change secretary, Ed Davey, said.
If all goes well, China, whose emissions have overtaken the US, will as part of the agreement formally pledge to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as will India, Brazil and other rising economies.
But much remains uncertain about the prospects of a strong deal emerging from Paris - not least because of the problems that arose during the negotiations in Lima.
The Lima negotiations had opened on 1 December amid a spirit of optimism following an agreement last month between the US and China to cut carbon pollution.
But it soon became apparent that the US-China deal on its own would have no effect on bridging the perennial dividing line of climate negotiations - the responsibility for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The talks over-ran by two days because of clashes over which countries should carry the burden of fighting climate change.
There were also disputes over climate finance. Wealthy countries were accused of failing to live up to their earlier promises of mobilising billions to help developing countries fight climate change.
But after a day of brinkmanship on Saturday - with Stern warning of a "major breakdown" - the deal was done.
"We got what we wanted," Prakash Javadekar, India's environment minister, said.
But much now remains to be done if the broad outlines agreed at Lima are to materialise in a full-fledged climate deal.
The US, China, and the European Union have already come forward with pledges for cutting greenhouse gas emissions after 2020.
Under the plan, countries are due to come forward by March 2015 with their proposed emissions reductions targets.
The United Nations would then weigh up those pledges and determine whether the collective action was enough to limit warming to 2C.
But much remains vague or poorly defined. The countries put off decisions about the legal structure of the agreement, and deferred decisions about ensuring a flow of finance to developing countries.
The biggest issue left unresolved for Paris is the burden for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The draft text retains language of "common but differentiated responsibilities" that has over the years given developing countries a pass on cutting emissions. That language remains in the text although with a rider "in light of different national circumstances". Stern acknowledged to reporters the issue was likely to come up again at Paris.
And the text adopted on Sunday no longer makes it mandatory for countries to provide detailed information about their prospect reductions targets.
Campaigners said that would make it increasingly difficult to be sure the deal would manage to keep warming within the 2 degree threshold.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
58 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 14, 2014 Sunday 9:47 AM GMT
Lima climate change talks reach agreement;
Deal would for first time commit all countries - including developing nations - to cutting emissionsFull text of the deal (pdf)
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg in Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 869 words
International negotiators at the Lima climate change talks have agreed on a plan to fight global warming that would for the first time commit all countries to cutting their greenhouse gas emissions.
The plan, agreed at United Nations talks on Sunday, was hailed as an important first step towards a climate change deal due to be finalised in Paris next year.
"As a text it's not perfect, but it includes the positions of the parties," said Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, the Peruvian environment minister, who presided over the talks.
However, negotiators acknowledged they had put off the most difficult decisions for later.
Campaigners said the plan was far too weak to limit warming to the internationally agreed limit of 2C above pre-industrial levels, or to protect poor countries from climate change.
"It's definitely watered down from what we expected," said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
They also warned negotiators had left too many contentious issues unresolved before the deadline for reaching a deal in Paris. "The countdown clock to Paris is now ticking. Countries had the chance to give themselves a head start on the road to Paris but instead have missed the gun and now need to play catch up," said Mohammed Adow, Christian Aid's senior climate change advisor.
But after a difficult negotiation - which over-ran by two days- officials said they were satisfied with the outcome.
"It was contentious along the way but it fundamentally accomplished what we wanted it to," Todd Stern, the US State Department's climate change envoy, said.
The five-page text agreed on Sunday - now officially known as the Lima Call for Climate Action - represents the embryonic phase of the deal due to be delivered in Paris.
As sketched out in Lima, all countries, rising economies as well as rich countries would pledge action on climate change.
Wealthy countries would help developing countries fight climate change, by investing in clean energy technology or offering climate aid.
Countries already threatened by climate change - such as small island states which face being swallowed up by rising seas - were promised a "loss and damage" programme of financial aid.
The all-inclusive nature of the emissions cuts constitutes a break with one of the defining principles of the last 20 years of climate talks - that wealthy countries should carry the burden of cutting carbon dioxide emissions.
"I think for the first time ever the world can contemplate a global deal applicable to all and Lima has helped that process," the UK's energy and climate change secretary, Ed Davey, said.
If all goes well, China, whose emissions have overtaken the US, will as part of the agreement formally pledge to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as will India, Brazil and other rising economies.
But much remains uncertain about the prospects of a strong deal emerging from Paris - not least because of the problems that arose during the negotiations in Lima.
The Lima negotiations had opened on 1 December amid a spirit of optimism following an agreement last month between the US and China to cut carbon pollution.
But it soon became apparent that the US-China deal on its own would have no effect on bridging the perennial dividing line of climate negotiations - the responsibility for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The talks over-ran by two days because of clashes over which countries should carry the burden of fighting climate change.
There were also disputes over climate finance. Wealthy countries were accused of failing to live up to their earlier promises of mobilising billions to help developing countries fight climate change.
But after a day of brinkmanship on Saturday - with Stern warning of a "major breakdown" - the deal was done.
"We got what we wanted," Prakash Javadekar, India's environment minister, said.
But much now remains to be done if the broad outlines agreed at Lima are to materialise in a full-fledged climate deal.
The US, China, and the European Union have already come forward with pledges for cutting greenhouse gas emissions after 2020.
Under the plan, countries are due to come forward by March 2015 with their proposed emissions reductions targets.
The United Nations would then weigh up those pledges and determine whether the collective action was enough to limit warming to 2C.
But much remains vague or poorly defined. The countries put off decisions about the legal structure of the agreement, and deferred decisions about ensuring a flow of finance to developing countries.
The biggest issue left unresolved for Paris is the burden for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The draft text retains language of "common but differentiated responsibilities" that has over the years given developing countries a pass on cutting emissions. That language remains in the text although with a rider "in light of different national circumstances". Stern acknowledged to reporters the issue was likely to come up again at Paris.
And the text adopted on Sunday no longer makes it mandatory for countries to provide detailed information about their prospect reductions targets.
Campaigners said that would make it increasingly difficult to be sure the deal would manage to keep warming within the 2 degree threshold.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
59 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 14, 2014 Sunday 7:32 AM GMT
Lima climate change talks reach agreement;
Deal would for first time commit all countries - including developing nations - to cutting emissionsFull text of the deal (pdf)
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg in Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 283 words
Negotiators adopted a course of action on Sunday that would for the first time commit every country to cutting the greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change.
The decision reached at United Nations climate talks on Sunday was seen as a significant first step towards reaching a global climate change deal in Paris at the end of next year - although negotiators acknowledged much of the hard work remained ahead.
It is also far from clear that the actions sketched out on Sunday would be enough to limit warming to the internationally agreed limit of 2C above pre-industrial levels - or to protect poor countries from climate change.
"I think this is good, and I think this moves us forward," Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, Peru's environment minister and the chair of the talks, said.
The deal struck early Sunday - now officially known as the Lima Call for Climate Action - would for the first time require all countries, rising economies as well as rich countries, to take action on climate change.
That represents a break from one of the defining principles of the last 20 years of climate talks - that wealthy countries should carry the burden of cutting carbon dioxide emissions.
Now for the first time, China, whose emissions have overtaken the US since climate talks began as well as India, Brazil and other rising economies have agreed they will need to cut their own emissions as well.
As agreed, countries would come up with their own emissions reductions targets, with a suggested deadline of 31 March 2015.
The United Nations would then weigh up those pledges and determine whether the collective action was enough to limit warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels, the internationally agreed goal.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
60 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 14, 2014 Sunday 7:32 AM GMT
Lima climate change talks reach agreement;
Deal would for first time commit all countries - including developing nations - to cutting emissionsFull text of the deal (pdf)
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg in Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 283 words
Negotiators adopted a course of action on Sunday that would for the first time commit every country to cutting the greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change.
The decision reached at United Nations climate talks on Sunday was seen as a significant first step towards reaching a global climate change deal in Paris at the end of next year - although negotiators acknowledged much of the hard work remained ahead.
It is also far from clear that the actions sketched out on Sunday would be enough to limit warming to the internationally agreed limit of 2C above pre-industrial levels - or to protect poor countries from climate change.
"I think this is good, and I think this moves us forward," Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, Peru's environment minister and the chair of the talks, said.
The deal struck early Sunday - now officially known as the Lima Call for Climate Action - would for the first time require all countries, rising economies as well as rich countries, to take action on climate change.
That represents a break from one of the defining principles of the last 20 years of climate talks - that wealthy countries should carry the burden of cutting carbon dioxide emissions.
Now for the first time, China, whose emissions have overtaken the US since climate talks began as well as India, Brazil and other rising economies have agreed they will need to cut their own emissions as well.
As agreed, countries would come up with their own emissions reductions targets, with a suggested deadline of 31 March 2015.
The United Nations would then weigh up those pledges and determine whether the collective action was enough to limit warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels, the internationally agreed goal.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
61 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 14, 2014 Sunday 6:57 AM GMT
Lima climate change talks reach agreement;
Deal would for first time commit all countries - including developing nations - to cutting emissions
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg in Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 283 words
Negotiators adopted a course of action on Sunday that would for the first time commit every country to cutting the greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change.
The decision reached at United Nations climate talks on Sunday was seen as a significant first step towards reaching a global climate change deal in Paris at the end of next year - although negotiators acknowledged much of the hard work remained ahead.
It is also far from clear that the actions sketched out on Sunday would be enough to limit warming to the internationally agreed limit of 2C above pre-industrial levels - or to protect poor countries from climate change.
"I think this is good, and I think this moves us forward," Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, Peru's environment minister and the chair of the talks, said.
The deal struck early Sunday - now officially known as the Lima Call for Climate Action - would for the first time require all countries, rising economies as well as rich countries, to take action on climate change.
That represents a break from one of the defining principles of the last 20 years of climate talks - that wealthy countries should carry the burden of cutting carbon dioxide emissions.
Now for the first time, China, whose emissions have overtaken the US since climate talks began as well as India, Brazil and other rising economies have agreed they will need to cut their own emissions as well.
As agreed, countries would come up with their own emissions reductions targets, with a suggested deadline of 31 March 2015.
The United Nations would then weigh up those pledges and determine whether the collective action was enough to limit warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels, the internationally agreed goal.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
62 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 14, 2014 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
The Slippery Slope of Weather Talk
BYLINE: By FLORA STUBBS
SECTION: Section ST; Column 0; Style Desk; NOTED; Pg. 17
LENGTH: 680 words
In the 16 years since Ricky Pannell opened his hair salon in the West Village, his clients' preferred topic of conversation has remained resolutely unchanged. ''The weather is all I ever talk about,'' he said.
What has changed, in a significant way, is the nature of these conversations.
''It used to be just a simple case of, it's so hot, it's so cold, whatever,'' he said. ''Now, climate change is a huge topic. Someone will come in, they'll say: 'It's so warm outside, it's crazy. When I was a kid, it would be snowing at this time of year.' ''
''It's more serious now,'' Mr. Pannell said, a little ruefully.
These days it can be hard to make small talk about the weather without drifting into altogether more treacherous waters (''Polar Vortex Causes Hundreds of Injuries as People Making Snide Remarks About Climate Change Are Punched in Face,'' read the headline on a New Yorker piece by the humorist Andy Borowitz last winter).
''It's getting to the point now where I avoid talking about religion, politics or the weather,'' said Brian Calvert, an environmental journalist in Colorado. ''I know I'm not going to be able to talk about the weather without getting into climate change,'' he said. ''In the coffee shop, I might choose to have that conversation; in the diner, I might not.''
Environmental shifts are also driving our appetite for information on the weather, via apps and social media.
''The weather just seems to get more severe,'' said Allan Hui, vice president of product development at Weather Underground, an app that provides hyper-localized data from 37,000 weather stations worldwide. ''That definitely drives interest in our product.''
According to a recent report by the World Bank Group, extreme weather events could become the new ''climate normal.'' In this world of ''increased risks and instability,'' it seems we find comfort in being armed with the facts. With access to the storm-surge of information on our smartphones, we are all meteorologists now.
Just a few years ago, terms like extreme snowfall or polar vortex were familiar only to professionals; today, they are bandied about in coffee shops and office elevators. Being able to reel off the six-day forecast or comment on tomorrow's likely barometric pressure, was, until recently, not within the typical civilian remit.
''Folks are certainly a whole lot more engaged with the weather than they used to be,'' said James Franklin, branch chief of the National Hurricane Center's Hurricane Specialist Unit. ''A couple years ago we would get the occasional email from a member of the public. Now I spend my evenings responding to comments and questions on Facebook.''
''I just like to know what's going to happen,'' said Stacey Pittman, a photo editor from Manhattan. ''I definitely check the weather on my iPhone first thing in the morning, so I know what to wear. Then multiple times a day after that.''
As with most social-media phenomena, digital weather-watching offers valuable opportunities for showing off. Layering local temperature over holiday photos on Snapchat, or posting screen-grabs of eye-catching weather app readings (''Miami: 89 degrees!''), is hot currency in the world of online bragging, which may explain why teenagers seem suddenly more informed about the weather than everyone else.
Smartphones are also changing the way weather is recorded. ''By searching geotags on social media, we can actually see the weather the way people are experiencing it on the ground,'' said Nick Wiltgen, a digital meteorologist at the Weather Channel. ''That's changed everything.''
For meteorologists and smartphone users alike, being a part of this new, weather-savvy cohort is useful. Weather stations get more data, while contributors gain a feeling of community and inclusion. ''People want to participate,'' said Mr. Hui of Weather Underground, which has a popular crowd-reporting function. ''They're looking to the weather to find a sense of meaning, context and relevance.'' And isn't that why anyone ever talked about the weather in the first place?
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/fashion/hows-the-weather-becomes-a-loaded-question.html
LOAD-DATE: February 3, 2015
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: A wintry day in New York can lead to more than small talk as conversations drift toward climate change and fuel an appetite for more information about the weather. (PHOTOGRAPH BY JOHN MOORE/GETTY IMAGES)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
63 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 14, 2014 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
Nations Plod Forward on Climate Change Accord
BYLINE: By CORAL DAVENPORT
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 4
LENGTH: 1378 words
LIMA, Peru -- Negotiators from around the globe were haggling into Saturday night over the final elements of a climate change agreement that would, for the first time, commit every nation to cutting its greenhouse gas emissions -- yet would still fall far short of what is needed to stave off the dangerous and costly early impacts of global warming.
Delegates from nearly 200 countries have been working for two weeks here, in a temporary complex of white tents at the headquarters of the Peruvian Army, to produce the framework of a climate change accord to be signed by world leaders in Paris next year. Though United Nations officials had been scheduled to release the plan on Friday at noon, longstanding divisions between rich and poor countries kept them wrangling through Friday and into Saturday night.
At its core, the draft is expected to require every nation to put forward, over the next six months, a detailed domestic policy plan to cut its emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases from coal, gas and oil. Those plans, which would be published on a United Nations website, would form the basis of the accord to be signed next December and enacted by 2020.
That basic structure represents a breakthrough in the impasse that has plagued the United Nations' 20 years of efforts to create a serious global warming deal. Until now, negotiations had followed a divide put in place by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which required that developed countries act but did not require anything of developing nations, including China and India, two of the largest greenhouse gas polluters.
By requiring action from every country, the Lima framework will fundamentally change the old world order that stymied earlier climate change talks. But on its own, that political breakthrough will not achieve the stated goal of the deal: to slow the rate of global emissions enough to prevent the atmosphere from warming more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit over the preindustrial average. That is the point at which scientists say the planet will tip into dangerous and irreversible effects, such as melting sea ice, rising sea levels, increased flooding and droughts, food and water shortages, and more extreme storms.
Speaking to delegates here on Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry said, ''We're still on a course leading to tragedy.''
Given the current level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and the fact that the new plans would not be enacted until 2020, most experts say the best that can be hoped for is that the deal would cut emissions by about half as much as is needed to stop the 3.6-degree rise.
''Nobody here thinks an agreement will be a silver bullet that eliminates this threat,'' Mr. Kerry said. ''But we can't get anywhere without an agreement.''
About 2 a.m. Saturday morning, hopes were high that a deal would soon be struck, as the Peruvian environmental officials leading the talks here circulated a draft text that included rigorous provisions laying out how countries must put forth their domestic emissions reduction plans.
But in a plenary session Saturday afternoon, the old divide of rich and poor emerged as nations fought over core provisions of the proposal.
A bloc known as the Like-Minded Countries, comprising India, China and a number of major oil-developing nations, including Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, demanded that the deal include what is known in United Nations parlance as ''differentiation.'' They insisted on easier requirements than rich nations when putting forth their emissions statistics, balked at proposals that would allow aggressive outside monitoring and verification of each country's plan before a deal is signed next year, and said that their plans for reducing emissions rates be met with commitments of money in the rich countries' plans. Poor countries want rich countries' plans to include concrete pledges to help the poor countries pay to adapt to the coming ravages of climate change, and to help them pay for new, low-carbon technology, such as wind and solar, to replace cheap but heavily polluting coal. But that requirement is nonstarter for rich countries like the United States.
Speaking for the Like-Minded Countries, the Malaysian delegate, Gurdial Singh Nijar, said: ''We are in a different stage of development. Many of you colonized us, and we started from a completely different point. Those red lines were not addressed in the text.''
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has complained that any agreement designed to reduce consumption of fossil fuels like oil threatens its economy. Just as vulnerable island nations have called for financing to help them adapt to the ravages of climate change, Saudi Arabia has called for money to adapt to a world in which its economy is imperiled by climate change policy. Some negotiators feared that the Saudi delegation could try to stop progress on the deal at the last minute.
Faced with frustrated nations laying out hard lines, Peru's environment minister, Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, spent Saturday meeting with various blocs -- from the least developed vulnerable countries to states that depend on oil revenue to fuel their economies -- and announced that by day's end, he would put forth a new draft designed to answer their concerns and would continue the summit meeting's formal proceedings at 11 p.m.
Some delegations are scheduled to leave Lima before then. Privately, some negotiators worried that by that point, with delegates exhausted by lack of sleep, the talks could fall apart entirely. More likely, outside observers said, was the possibility that the new text would represent a weaker, less rigorous deal than had been anticipated. As evening approached on Saturday, workers began dismantling some of the temporary structures that have housed the talks since the end of November.
Speaking to the assembly, Todd D. Stern, the lead American negotiator, urged: ''Failing to produce a decision on the text before us will be seen as a major breakdown. All that we have achieved thus far and all we hope to achieve will be at risk, as well.''
Antonio Marcondes, Brazil's ambassador to the conference, said he would continue to push for provisions demanding that developing nations receive financing to help them reduce carbon emissions and adapt to the effects of climate change.
''We're still concerned about differentiation, in all its forms,'' said Mr. Marcondes, whose country, like China and India, is one of the world's largest polluters and also home to millions of impoverished people.
In remarks to fellow delegates last week, India's environment minister, Prakash Javadekar, said the deal ''should be able to address the genuine requirements of the developing countries by providing them equitable carbon space to achieve sustainable development and eradicate poverty.''
One country that had been viewed as a wild card, and as a possible last-minute disrupter in the talks, was Russia. President Vladimir V. Putin has publicly scoffed at the science of human-caused climate change. But the lead Russian negotiator, Oleg Shamanov, expressed criticism this weekend of other countries that had slowed the process of forging a deal.
''Unfortunately, again and again, we step on the same rakes,'' Mr. Shamanov said about 4 a.m. on Saturday, after a fraught negotiating session broke up. ''The draft is not bad, per se. We strongly support the idea of having meaningful deliverables.'' He added that Russia, whose economy is deeply dependent on oil and natural gas production, and is also one of the world's top five carbon polluters, was already working on its plan to cut emissions.
''We are one of the few countries doing it,'' he said. Speaking to the plenary, he surprised many observers, saying, ''We are prepared to support this text.''
Even if the divisions expressed Saturday are resolved, much of the success of the Lima deal will be determined over the coming months, as governments put forth their plans.
Paul Bledsoe, an aide to President Bill Clinton's administration on climate change who is now with the German Marshall Fund of the United States, said, ''The really difficult issues -- financing, adaptation, monitoring and ultimate emissions reductions -- are left to be ironed out over the next 12 months.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/world/climate-change-summit-meeting-in-lima.html
LOAD-DATE: February 3, 2015
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Delegates on Friday at the United Nations climate conference in Lima, Peru. A draft deal is expected to require every nation, not just developed ones, to offer a detailed plan to cut emissions. (PHOTOGRAPH BY ENRIQUE CASTRO-MENDIVIL/REUTERS)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
64 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 14, 2014 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
Why 2014 Is a Big Deal
BYLINE: By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN.
Maureen Dowd is off today.
SECTION: Section SR; Column 0; Editorial Desk; OP-ED COLUMNIST; Pg. 9
LENGTH: 908 words
I WAS just about to go with a column that started like this: When they write the history of the global response to climate change, 2014 could well be seen as the moment when the balance between action and denial tipped decisively toward action. That's thanks to the convergence of four giant forces: São Paulo, Brazil, went dry; China and the United States together went green; solar panels went cheap; and Google and Apple went home.
But before I could go further, the bottom fell out of the world oil price, and the energy economist Phil Verleger wrote me, saying: ''Fracking is a technological breakthrough like the introduction of the PC. Low-cost producers such as the Saudis will respond to the threat of these increased supplies by holding prices down'' -- hoping the price falls below the cost of fracking and knocks some of those American frackers out. In the meantime, though, he added, sustained low prices for oil and gas would ''retard'' efforts to sell more climate-friendly, fuel-efficient vehicles that are helped by high oil prices and slow the shift to more climate-friendly electricity generation by wind and solar that is helped by high gas prices.
So I guess the lead I have to go with now is: When they write the history of the global response to climate change, 2014 surely would have been seen as the moment when the climate debate ended. Alas, though, world crude oil prices collapsed, making it less likely that the world will do what the International Energy Agency recently told us we must: keep most of the world's proven oil and gas reserves in the ground. As the I.E.A. warned, ''no more than one-third of proven reserves of fossil fuels can be consumed prior to 2050'' -- otherwise we'll bust through the limit of a 2-degree Celsius rise in average temperature that scientists believe will unleash truly disruptive ice melt, sea level rise and weather extremes.
Technology is a cruel thing. The innovators who've made solar panels, wind power and batteries so efficient that they can now compete with coal and gas are the same innovators who are enabling us to extract oil and gas from places we never imagined we could go at prices we never imagined we would reach. Is a third lead sentence possible? There is. In fact, there is an amazing lead waiting to be written. It just takes the right political will. How so?
Let's go back to my first lead. The reason I thought we were decisively tipping toward action was, in part, because of news like this from the BBC on Nov. 7 in São Paulo: ''In Brazil's biggest city, a record dry season and ever-increasing demand for water has led to a punishing drought.'' When a metropolitan region of 20 million people runs dry because of destruction of its natural forests and watersheds, plus an extreme weather event scientists believe was made more intense by climate change, denialism is just not an option.
Then you have the hugely important deal that President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China struck on Nov. 12 under which the United States will reduce its carbon emissions 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, and China will peak its carbon emissions by or before 2030. China also committed to build by 2030 an additional 800 to 1,000 gigawatts of clean power -- or nearly as much new renewable energy in China as all the electrical capacity in America today. That will greatly spur innovation in clean tech and help do for solar, wind and batteries what China did for tennis shoes -- really drive down global prices.
Also, last February, Google bought Nest, for $3.2 billion. Nest makes a $250 smart thermostat that can save homeowners tons of money by learning their temperature preferences and automatically managing their air-conditioners and home heating systems for the greatest efficiency. Also this year, Apple announced the development of the Apple HomeKit, which will enable customers to remotely manage their appliances and home energy systems on their iPhones. When Apple and Google start competing to make homes more energy efficient, watch out. We will likely see nonlinear improvements.
But what if Verleger is right -- that just as the cost of computing dropped following the introduction of the PC, fracking technology could flood the world with cheaper and cheaper oil, making it a barrier to reducing emissions? There is one way out of this dilemma. Let's make a hard political choice that's a win for the climate, our country and our kids: Raise the gasoline tax.
''U.S. roads are crumbling,'' said Verleger. ''Infrastructure is collapsing. Our railroads are a joke.'' Meantime, gasoline prices at the pump are falling toward $2.50 a gallon -- which would be the lowest national average since 2009 -- and consumers are rushing to buy S.U.V.'s and trucks. The ''clear solution,'' said Verleger, is to set a price of, say, $3.50 a gallon for gasoline in America, and then tax any price below that up to that level. Let the Europeans do their own version. ''And then start spending the billions on infrastructure right now. At a tax of $1 per gallon, the U.S. could raise around $150 billion per year,'' he said. ''The investment multiplier would give a further kick to the U.S. economy -- and might even start Europe moving.''
So there is a way to make 2014 that truly decisive year in confronting both climate and rebuilding America, but only our political leaders can write that lead.
I invite you to follow me on Twitter.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-why-2014-is-a-big-deal.html
LOAD-DATE: February 3, 2015
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Op-Ed
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
65 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Dot Earth)
December 14, 2014 Sunday
At Climate Talks in Lima, Not 'Same as it Ever Was'?
BYLINE: ANDREW C. REVKIN
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 2102 words
HIGHLIGHT: An environmental journalist says the Lima summit mainly shows how climate diplomacy is racing to catch up with energy progress on the ground.
Longtime readers will recall how I've cited the Talking Heads lyric "same as it ever was" quite often over the years in assessing negotiations aimed at forging a new global agreement on slowing global warming and limiting its impacts. Some observers at the latest round of negotiations, which ran overtime and ended this morning in Lima, Peru, insist things are no longer the way they were, and that a new theme song may be in order. I was not at the talks this year, so I'm drawing on input from a variety of contacts who were. I'll weigh in tomorrow, as well.
On Monday I'll be posting reflections from a batch of climate-policy analysts, climate campaigners and others with a range of viewpoints on what was, and wasn't, a significant step on the path to an international climate agreement at next year's negotiations, in Paris. An excellent starting point is today's post by Robert Stavins at Harvard.
To begin, here's a "Your Dot" reflection on the Lima talks from James Fahn, the executive director of Internews's Earth Journalism Network and a lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley, Graduate School of Journalism. (He previously wrote for Dot Earth from Bhutan.)
Fahn was in Peru to lead the annual Climate Change Media Partnership, which brings groups of journalists - this year, mostly from Latin America, but also from China, India and Nepal - to cover the negotiations. (Full disclosure: I led a workshop at the 2010 climate meeting in Cancún, Mexico, for this group, which I've hailed as a valuable network for sharing coverage and journalism tips.)
Here's his piece:
At Climate Talks in Lima, Only the Arguing Remains the Same
By James Fahn
As a reporter for a Thai newspaper back in 1997 covering the Kyoto Climate Summit, I managed to interview then-Senator John Kerry, one of the few elected officials who have frequently attended the annual treaty negotiations. Amid all the euphoria of the final night when the text of the Kyoto Protocol was agreed upon, he warned, "I think it's going to be very difficult [for the U.S.] to ratify without more participation from key developing countries. That may take a long time."
Flash forward 14 years to Lima, where Kerry, now with considerably more authority as Secretary of State, gave a riveting speech that was one of the highlights of COP20 - the 20th conference of parties to the U.N. Convention on Climate Change. His message, though, was largely the same: "I know this is difficult [but] ... we have to remember that today more than half of emissions are coming from developing nations, so it is imperative that they act, too."
But the circumstances have changed. The science behind human-induced global warming is far stronger, as documented by the latest assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The impacts of extreme climate events are far clearer, punctuated this year by yet another typhoon slamming into the Philippines during the summit, and helping to shift alliances in the talks. Here in Latin America, the Amazon rain forest seems to be drying at an alarming rate, Sao Paulo is beset by drought, and Buenos Aires could soon see a record amount of rainfall this year, according to Argentinian author and journalist Martin De Ambrosio. (During the summit, however, local Peruvian media seemed mostly focused on a dumb stunt from Greenpeace that desecrated an ancient Nazca geoglyph and drew an abject apology.)
And in a landmark agreement last month, the two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, China and the United States, agreed on setting new limits to their carbon emissions. This has not only changed the dynamic of the negotiations, but cast the "villains" of past summits in a slightly different light, and pointed the spotlight on otheremitting giants. One of our Latin American journalist Fellows remarked to me how enthused she felt by Kerry's rousing speech. The reaction in the past to U.S. speeches has often between depression, anger or bewilderment.
Expectations have also changed. If the dream in Kyoto, and even in Copenhagen five years ago, was to legally bind countries in a global agreement that would spur changes domestically, the more modest goal for the Paris agreement next year is to have each country offer up what it can, based on its current actions and plans, through "intended nationally determined commitments" (or INDCs, to use the latest acronym to sweep the COP). This is the "bottom up" or "soft" approach described by Andrew Revkin at the start of the summit, although the combined commitments almost certainly won't be enough to keep the planet below the politically agreed target of 2 degrees Celsius average warming.
Much of the debate in Lima centered on what countries should include in their INDCs; how long should the commitments be for; should the commitments include financing and adaptation goals; and that old chestnut: how should the commitments of developed and developing countries be differentiated.
"We stand behind the differentiation," said Antonio Marcondes of the Brazilian delegation, which proposed this could now take the form of concentric circles of responsibility, rather than the heretofore division between Annex I (developed) and Annex II (developing) countries. "We stand behind 'common but differentiated responsibilities' - these are issues we hold very strong and these are definite red lines," he said.
Speaking at the Negotiator Media Clinic - an annual event organized by the Climate Change Media Partnership which gathers together key negotiators from multiple delegations to sit down together and, an all too rare occurrence, respond to journalists' questions - Elina Bardram, a leader of the European Union delegation, said they respected the principle of differentiation, but that "going into the future we need to apply that principle in a contemporary and more nuanced way because the world is not static. We're not in the world of 1992. There is much more diversity in the GDPs, in the trade potential, in the competitiveness of different countries, and in their capacity to tackle climate change."
The agreement that came out of Lima mostly papered over such differences. Expect the arguments to continue right up through the COP 21 summit in Paris next year.
But perhaps most importantly, the economics have changed. The cost of wind power has declined 40 percent since the Copenhagen summit and the cost of solar power 80 percent, making the switch to renewable energy seem more feasible. Meanwhile, the costs of inaction seem ever clearer, noted Glen Murray, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change for the province of Ontario, even if they are often overlooked.
"Our food supply comes from California, and so our prices have risen 20 percent due to the drought. The drought in Brazil has driven coffee prizes up by 10 percent," explained Murray. "Buffalo just had an extreme snowstorm even by its standards. Toxic algae made water undrinkable in Toledo. This is the reality of inaction."
Murray was speaking at one of the most fascinating side events at the summit, where representatives of states and provinces in North America described the various steps they're taking to put a price on carbon emissions and to foster renewables. Although you hear less about this "sub-national" activity by states and cities, or the steps being taken by businesses, than you do about federal policies. But this is where some of the most exciting changes are taking place.
Matt Rodriguez, the head of California's Environmental Protection Agency and of a sizable state delegation to the Lima talks, outlined the various standards for low-carbon fuels, energy efficiency and greener buildings it has enacted. California has a market-based cap and trade program for emissions, developed in partnership with the province of Quebec, and "we want 1.5 million electric vehicles on the road by 2025."
"The Lima draft agreement has a substantial role for sub-national governments," added David Heurtel, Quebec's Minister of Sustainable Development. "We have set up a true cross-country carbon market. On November 25th, we auctioned off a full round of carbon credits, above the floor price. All of them sold. This is true proof of concept. These are no longer just plans or dreams."
Ontario is also considering whether to join the Western Climate Initiative and create a joint carbon market with California and Quebec, which would encompass over 60 percent of Canada's population and over 50 percent of its GDP. Nine states in the eastern US have joined together to create the carbon market known as RGGI, which Pennsylvania looks ready to join. Meanwhile, British Columbia has implemented a revenue-neutral carbon tax, despite the general unpopularity of taxes.
"We were told it would destroy the economy and we'd never get elected again, but we've won two elections since it was enacted" five years ago, according to Mary Polak, the province's Minister of Environment. "It's the revenue neutrality that really makes it work. We collected C$1.2 million last year and a little bit more was returned."
"California and British Columbia have demonstrated that you can have strong economic growth in carbon-constrained economies," said Margi Hoffman, an energy policy advisor to the Governor of Oregon, which has joined them and Washington State to form the Pacific Coast Collaborative. Together, they are discussing construction of a charging network to enable electric vehicles to travel all along the west coast.
Other countries are also getting in on the act. South Korea is launching the world's second biggest carbon market next year, South Africa is planning to implement a carbon tax in 2016, and Chile in 2018. Of course, for every two steps forward, there seems to be at least one step back. Australia recently repealed its carbon tax, and the collapse of the European Union carbon market - due to a "lack of ambition", according to World Bank vice president Rachel Kyte - has caused the price of carbon to drop precipitously there.
The real game changer could be the plan by China to launch a national carbon market in 2016-17. Much like in North America, although with more central guidance, China has been experimenting at the sub-national level, in seven provinces and cities - Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong, Chongqing, Shenzhen, Hebei and Zhejiang. "The pilots are very successful," said Minister Xie Zhenhua, the head of the Chinese delegation in Lima. "The signal of success is not carbon price, but the exploration of potential regulation and system on pilots that are in different developing levels."
California has been advising China in its regulatory plans, as part of an active climate diplomacy that seems to extend far and wide. Asked whether they plan to join their carbon markets, officials made it clear it was being considered, but expressed caution. "We need an international agreement to set targets first," said Jiang Zhaoli of China's National Development Reform Council. "It's not the right time for China to start a regional or global carbon market with other countries," announced Xie. "We should establish our domestic market before cooperating with other countries on a global market."
China will probably weigh just how much it needs external financing before deciding to link its market abroad, but it too is being driven by impacts. Although getting data about such issues can be hard, the Third Pole website, which chronicles and translates news about climate and water issues all around the Himalayan region and in downstream countries, recently launched a data site compiling scientific information that otherwise tends to be too closely guarded by security-conscious officials throughout South and Central Asia.
The data show that climate change is becoming real, and this is echoed by the experience of people around the world. "Our farmers plant at a different time of year than their grandparents did," said Tracy Stone Manning, the chief environmental official from Montana, who was also in Lima. "Our fire seasons are gigantic now, and they're followed by biblical floods."
This is what has changed the most - the clear impacts and the responses to them. "We're the great hope now," argued Murray from Ontario, "because the people are quickly moving ahead of the government."
Summits like Lima this year and Paris next year are a chance to let the diplomats catch up to what's happening on the ground in cities, states and businesses, and for those driving the change to catch up on what's happening around the rest of the world. Whether or not we get an effective global agreement, we've come a long way since Kyoto.
LOAD-DATE: December 14, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
66 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 13, 2014 Saturday 1:26 AM GMT
block-time published-time 10.23pm GMT Summary;
Updates and reaction from the UN climate summit in Peru, where nearly 200 countries are trying to agree the draft text for a deal to avoid dangerous global warming
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 8368 words
block-time published-time 10.23pm GMT
Summary
As negotiators haggle and night descends on Lima, we're going to wind the blog down for now. Here's a summary of the key events as talks ran into overtime.
Talks are expected to continue long into the night, although the summit's president says he's "optimistic" a climate deal will be struck today. Some negotiators expect no resolution until sometime Saturday.
Key passages, pertaining to renewable energy commitments and how developing and wealthy nations will split the cost of climate change action, exposed deep rifts among negotiators.
An influential NGO advocating for developing countries has called the current draft text "a disaster for the planet and the poor".
Germany's environment minister, Barbara Hendricks, says that bilateral meetings with countries including the US and China leave her hopeful that stumbling blocks can be overcome between now and a crunch summit in Paris next year.
A draft text revealed what Oxfam called a "choose your own adventure" of climate change action.
US secretary of state, John Kerry, has warned that countries must take action because climate science is "screaming" at the world.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.26am GMT
block-time published-time 10.09pm GMT
Oxfam press officer Ben Grossman-Cohen has released a brief statement with its assessment of the talks' major debates:
Separate discussions are proceeding to overcome sticking points on the approach to finance in the time pre-2020, which is oddly referred to as 'long-term finance'. Compromise proposals are floating around among negotiators but these have yet to be made public. The current state of play is that the outcome will likely be very weak.
Proposals to create a roadmap for reaching the $100bn promise have been watered down to merely "inviting" developed countries to provide further information on this goal. This makes it very unlikely that developing countries will get the clarity, predictability and support they need to boost climate action in the next few years."
block-time published-time 9.55pm GMT
Deep distrust rankles some representatives at the talks, especially among small nations and the US and China.
Ahmed Sareer, negotiator for the Maldives, has succinctly expressed to my colleague Suzanne Goldenberg (@ suzyji ):
"How many CoPs will it take for us to really see any tangible results? We have been going from CoP to CoP and every time we are given so many assurances, and expectations are raised, but the gaps are getting wider," he said.
"There has been a clear commitment of $100bn a year but how are we really being offered? Even when they make those pledges how do we know how much is going to materialise? There is no point of knowing that behind the wall there is a big source of funds available unless we can reach it," he said.
"We are told it is there in a nice showcase, but we don't get to meet it. We don't get to access it. These are difficult issues for us."
Check out the Suzanne's full piece on the state of the talks here.
block-time published-time 9.33pm GMT
"Ridiculously low" commitments from rich nations to help pay for climate change efforts are frustrating powerful players such as India, my colleague Suzanne Goldenberg ( @suzyji ) reports from Lima.
It was also unclear how industrialised countries could be held to an earlier promise to mobilise $100bn a year for climate finance by 2020, negotiators from developing countries said. "We are disappointed," said India's Prakash Javadekar. "It is ridiculous. It is ridiculously low." Javadekar said the pledges to the green climate fund amounted to backsliding.
"We are upset that 2011, 2012, 2013 - three consecutive years - the developed world provided $10bn each year for climate action support to the developing world, but now they have reduced it. Now they are saying $10bn is for four years, so it is $2.5bn," he said.
You can read the full piece here.
block-time published-time 9.21pm GMT
Several Latin American have chosen to dramatically increase oil production recently, putting them in the crosshairs of other nations and environmental groups at the summit, Reuters reports.
Brazil is going full speed with investments in areas off its coast that could hold up to 35bn barrels of oil.
Scrambling for energy as a severe drought depletes hydro power plants' reservoirs, the country has just approved new coal-fired plants that would be partially financed by the government.
Mexico has recently approved new legislation that would allow foreign investments in oil production, breaking up local company Pemex's monopoly. The country estimates it has some 27bn barrels of unexplored oil.
Ecuador, Colombia and Peru all have similar plans in place.
Mexico and Peru are in controversial junctures. The former simultaneously "approved an ambitious climate change law [and] reformed energy legislation to increase oil investment," Gabriela Nino, a coordinator at the Mexican Center for Environmental Rights told Reuters.
Anti-oil protesters in Peru. Photograph: Martin Mejia/AP
Peru's government is debating whether to exempt certain oil companies from environmental reviews, a decision that would accelerate exploration projects.
Guy Edwards, a climate expert at Brown University called the countries out to the news wire: "If you take the domestic policies of many of these countries, the rhetoric is still much ahead of the action."
block-time published-time 9.09pm GMT
Vidal's update on the state of the talks has had a predictable effect on journalists covering the summit, which looks poised to keep up its marathon pace late through the night and into the morning.
Time for #COP20 BINGO. When's it gonna end? I'm picking 7am (Saturday) @MattMcGrathBBC@pilitaclark@LeoHickman@LFFriedman@gerardfwynn
- Edward King (@rtcc_edking) December 12, 2014
block-time published-time 8.56pm GMT
Vidal concludes by saying he won't open the floor: "We need to work."
"I will probably reconvene some time tonight a new stocktaking plenary, and [say] how we're going to move this process forward ... Thank you very much, let's go to work."
block-time published-time 8.55pm GMT
Vidal, the summit chief, says that today's talks have been productive, but his optimism is tempered.
"We still need more time. We don't want to create a process that won't allow all the parties to express their position on the document that the co-chairs released last evening."
He asks the ADP chairs to continue talks for two hours, and adds that he'll personally help mediate negotiations.
"We are almost there. We just need to make a final effort. ... We are almost there. There is no reason to stop this process, there is no reason to postpone our decision. ... We will find solutions."
"What do we expect? We want to have a very clear decision, here in Lima as part of the strong outcome of the COP20 text. ... We want to have the Lima draft text with the elements of the negotiating text as a way to give input to this process, but also as a way to show to the world that we are building this process step by step."
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 8.55pm GMT
block-time published-time 8.49pm GMT
The co-chair of the ADP just gave a few brief remarks.
"Some parties indicated where their red lines were, what were their preferred options, and assured their indication where their flexibilities may lie.
"We continued till 1pm as you instructed this morning, but then learning you had been further flexible ... we continued our negotiations.
He says that at 3pm there were at least 20 parties still on the floor trying to raise concerns when they finally convened, but that they'll have a chance yet.
block-time published-time 8.45pm GMT
Summit leaders give update on draft
The summit update is finally underway, with Pulgar Vidal, the president, beginning:
"As you remember, I instructed [last event for everyone] to produce a new text. That text was released at 10.30pm, so the co-chairs produced a text first that was shorter than the text producer before that one.
"Second, [it is] a more focused text, mainly on the issues that we need to go [for] more deeply.
"Third, the text [will be based] on confidence and seek consensus."
"Also, this is a text I am sure will move us forward to a very strong outcome by the end of this meeting, I hope today.
"So please, I want to give the floor to the co-chairs to brief on the discussion that they have begun on that text. After that, I will give further instruction on the way to go forward."
block-time published-time 8.41pm GMT
Negotiators have been asked to choose between three options on almost all of the draft's major issues, most of which are divided by one question: how will developing and wealthy nations split the bill?
My colleague Suzanne Goldenberg (@ suzyji ) explains a bit of the UN-NGO-climate change jargon:
In addition to finance, one of the biggest areas of contentious is "differentiation" in UN parlance - which countries should bear the burden of cutting emissions that cause climate change.
Countries are also divided over the initial commitments countries are expected to make on fighting climate change - known as "intended nationally determined contributions".
Meanwhile the nations are also debating just what the draft will set out. The US and other industrialised countries want all countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Back to Suzy for what that means:
That would be a departure from the original UN classification of the 1990s - which absolved China, India and other developing countries which are now major carbon polluters - of cutting their emissions.
Developing countries are suspicious that the text being developed in Lima is an attempt to rewrite those old guidelines.
"I am certain that developing countries the majority of them will have a problem with the way they framed responsibility. Most developing countries will be concerned about that," said Tasneem Essop, head of strategy for WWF.
Rich countries, the US among them, only want to commit to carbon cuts. Developing countries want them also to commit financing for climate adaptation, eg renewable energy investment.
block-time published-time 8.24pm GMT
Friends of the Earth campaigner Asad Rehman has harsh words for the political actors involved.
"crazy thing about #cop20 negotiations is we have solutions to climate, we have the tech & $ - we simply lack politicians with backbone'
- asad rehman (@chilledasad100) December 12, 2014
And also an explanation for why this stocktaking session has yet to begin as scheduled: lunch.
'if you wondered whats happening #COP20 - its lunchtime - followed by stocktaking session'
- asad rehman (@chilledasad100) December 12, 2014
block-time published-time 8.10pm GMT
I'll be bringing updates in live, but you can watch summit president Pulgar Vidal's "informal stocktaking" speech online here, via the UNFCCC's stream.
As my colleague Suzy Goldenberg reported earlier, Vidal's speech was postponed from 1pm to 3pm - after the original plan fell through to announce a deal at 12pm.
These signs, along with the history of talks in Doha and Warsaw, all suggest that talks will stretch into the night, with a new goal of reaching a deal sometime this weekend.
The auditorium where the speech will take place is just now filling up with reporters, so one more indeterminate delay is already in action ...
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 8.11pm GMT
block-time published-time 7.56pm GMT
"We're out of time," Samantha Smith of the WWF has just told reporters at a press conference, framing the talks in dire - but not impossible - terms.
There is a solution to climate change, this is the thing that's almost unbelievable about these negotiations. There are solution to fossil fuels, which are the main [cause of climate change], in a shift to clean renewable energy."
"It's just that we're out of time. Emissions need to peak within the transition and the transition has started. Emissions need to peak within the next five to 10 years, ideally within the next five.
"So this is a space where we cannot sit and wait for change to happen, it needs to happen here, it needs to happen in the 12 months to Paris, it needs to happen in Paris."
Sandeep Chamling Rai places the dangers in the context of human lives: "This is an issue of life and death for millions of people in vulnerable countries, like Nepal."
The summit president is scheduled to to deliver an "informal stocktaking" speech in a few minutes, 3pm local time.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 8.15pm GMT
block-time published-time 7.41pm GMT
Peru's indigenous people want a voice in the conversation, David Hill writes from Lima.
Over in the "Indigenous Pavilion" at the Voces del Clima event Roberto Espinoza, from indigenous federations AIDESEP and COICA, is lamenting the lack of indigenous peoples' participation at the formal negotiations.
He told an audience at the pavilion that the original idea was to have it in the COP20 itself, but this was the best they could do.
"They're feeling the pressure of indigenous peoples," he says, "but want to manage us from a distance. We want to be inside."
Peru's indigenous groups don't have an official say in the talks other than indirectly, through the government. The nation is in the midst of a protracted fight over natural resources and protection for its extraordinary range of rare ecosystems where many groups live.
block-time published-time 7.30pm GMT
Five main issues still need resolving, a negotiator at the summit told Dan Collyns ( @yachay_dc) on condition of anonymity.
The legal status of the elements draft.
The scope of INDCs
Information on INDCs.
Ex-ante considerations
Ex-post assessments of existing commitments
Translated (slightly): INDCs are the pledges countries are expected to make by end of next year's first quarter on a climate deal. Ex-ante considerations are the gritty details concerns; the ex-post assessments mean analyzing how current plans are working out.
The negotiator added that the second point, the scope of the INDCs, was proving the biggest sticking point.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 7.30pm GMT
block-time published-time 7.13pm GMT
Pulgar Vidal. Photograph: Ernesto Benavides/AFP/Getty Images
"We shouldn't be worried about the window if we're still building the foundations," summit president Pulgar Vidal has told Dan Collyns, who's just filed a bit more from his conversation with Peru's environment minister.
Pulgar said that he has asked delegates to reduce the text from 47 pages to seven pages last night (Thursday) to speed along the process.
This is a process which we are building brick by brick we shouldn't be worried about the window if we are still building the foundations.
"I think by assessing the INDCs we are going to know exactly how we are, so that is the next step and then we're going to move to Paris to try to alleviate the current consequences of climate change.
"We have begun this COP with a good atmosphere, we have launched it with the spirit of Lima; it's not only good weather and good Pisco - it is that Peruvian spirit - but with a good outcome."
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 7.14pm GMT
block-time published-time 6.59pm GMT
Summary
Talks are expected to run into overtime tonight. The summit's president says he's "optimistic" a climate deal will be struck today but some negotiators expect talks to continue on Saturday
An influential NGO advocating for developing countries has called the current draft text "a disaster for the planet and the poor"
Germany's environment minister, Barbara Hendricks, says that bilateral meetings with countries including the US and China leave her hopeful that stumbling blocks can be overcome between now and a crunch summit in Paris next year
A draft text shows that negotiators are still yet to agree on key passages of a deal
US secretary of state, John Kerry, has warned that countries must take action because climate science is "screaming" at the world
I'm handing over the live blog reins to my colleague Alan Yuhas ( @AlanYuhas ) in the US, so keep this page open for the latest news from Lima.
block-time published-time 6.33pm GMT
Dan Collyns has just caught up with the summit's president, Peru's Manuel Pulgar Vidal.
Despite what some negotiators are saying about the talks rolling into Saturday ( see 17:32 update ), he is still hopeful a deal will come today. He told Collyns:
The parties agree that we are not going to leave this COP [Conference of the Parties, the name for the annual UN climate summits] with empty hands, that by of the end of this COP we are going to have a good outcome... and the agreement of a new global text.
I am completely optimistic that we can deal with some of the objections and that by the end of today we are going to have a strong outcome, we should avoid for the future, for the next year, a sense of frustration, a sense of anxiety and anguish which we have already suffered in the past, so the best way to do that is to take a decision today.
Pulgar Vidal reportedly said earlier in the week that he was looking forward to sipping a pisco sour with delegates at 6pm (Lima time) on Friday night. As the BBC's Matt McGrath notes, "few believe that the deadline will be met. Mr Pulgar-Vidal may well be sipping his drink alone."
Manuel Pulgar Vidal (right) with the head of the US delegation, Todd Stern (left). Photograph: EITAN ABRAMOVICH/AFP/Getty Images
block-time published-time 6.13pm GMT
We've just published a gallery of photos from week two at Lima. Here's a taster, but the full thing is worth a look.
People march with placards on the streets of Lima. Photograph: Eitan Abramovich/AFP/Getty Images International delegates at the conference. Photograph: IIDS UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon with wife, Yoo Soon-taek, left, listen to Peruvian chef Virgilo Martinez during the presentation of ecological stoves at the conference. Photograph: Rodrigo Abd/AP
block-time published-time 6.04pm GMT
Further delays. An "informal stock-taking" by the president of the talks, Peruvian environment minister Manuel Pulgar Vidal, has been moved back to 3pm (local time).
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 6.14pm GMT
block-time published-time 6.02pm GMT
A "mixed bag" is how WWF describes the current draft text.
The head of its delegation, Tasneem Essop, says in a statement:
Negotiators are out of time here in Lima and everything is still up in the air. The current draft text contains a mixed bag of options - the good, the bad, and the 'good enough.' So we can't call the outcome quite yet.
We are really concerned that the current draft lacks specific actions to address pre-2020 emissions necessary to limit warming to 1.5-2C. It seems that governments in Lima are happy to leave hard decisions on climate change to the governments of tomorrow. This is a recipe for a climate nightmare.
We are happy that the current text contains the recognition for elements of a draft negotiating text for Paris and we need to ensure that remains. The text also rightly includes up front information requirements for national contributions due in 2015, but these must be strengthened, especially with regard to review, finance and adaptation.
block-time published-time 5.44pm GMT
Meena Raman from the influential NGO the Third World Network said at a press conference in Lima: "This bottom-up process [of countries setting their own pledges] which is trying to be locked in at Lima would be a disaster for the planet and the poor."
She added: "We don't see Lima outcome as fair, equitable, or even balanced."
block-time published-time 5.32pm GMT
A deal in Lima today looks unlikely, says our correspondent Suzanne Goldenberg :
ETA for @LimaCop20 deal now Sat night, according to negotiators arriving this AM. We'll see
- Suzanne Goldenberg (@suzyji) December 12, 2014
And some speculation on what the Lima deal will be called (following such previous hits as the Durban Action Platform, the Copenhagen Accord, and the Doha Climate Gateway )
Talk now of a Lima Action Platform which I for one think will lead to a lot of unfortunate acronyms & jokes @LimaCop20
- Suzanne Goldenberg (@suzyji) December 12, 2014
block-time published-time 5.24pm GMT
At a daily briefing, Ban Ki-moon's spokesman is asked about the UN secretary general's view on Greenpeace's climate talks stunt at the Nazca lines in Peru earlier this week, which it later apologised for.
The spokesman said:
The preservation of world heritage sites is critically important for the world as its name implies.
People who feel they need to demonstrate a particular point need to do so in a peaceful fashion.
Greenpeace Nazca stunt.
*This post has been amended; it erroneously included a reference to an errant cellphone ringer not relevant to the spokesman's other comments.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 7.23pm GMT
block-time published-time 5.19pm GMT
Barbara Hendricks, German minister for the environment, has been giving a press conference. One of the sticking points after Lima, she said, would be the legal form of the climate pact to be agreed in Paris next year ( more on that in this story here ).
Barbara Hendricks, German environment minister, at Lima climate talks on 12 December 2014. Photograph: Guardian/UNFCCC
On our way to Paris there are still many stumbling blocks remaining. I mention only three of them.
Differentiation. How will common but differentiated responsibilities be addressed under the new agreement? Do we continue to divide world into two parts, or will there be a continuum for commitments, both for mitigation and for finance. [ see 13:09 update ]
Balance. How will relationship between the expected mitigation commitments of all countries and of financial support in the new agreement.
Legal form. How far do we reach legal bindingness in Paris for the rules applying to our contributions and for the contributions themselves.
In addition to the negotiations, I had several bilateral discussions... I gained the impression that there is a great willignness to overcome the stumbling blocks, and find ambitious solutions together that are acceptable to all states. That leaves me confident for the next year but I still think we need more effort and more speed.
block-time published-time 5.02pm GMT
Lima noon summary
US secretary of state, John Kerry, says climate science is "screaming at us" and calls on negotiators to set aside old differences between rich and poor countries
A draft text released overnight sparks criticism from developing countries that ambition has been watered-down
A leaked briefing note from a bloc of countries with a history of 'blocking' at the talks says that no climate deal is better than a bad one
block-time published-time 4.36pm GMT
One of the blocs at the talks, the Like-Minded Development Group, is reportedly saying in private (and now pretty publicly via a leak) that no deal is better than a bad one. The group includes several big oil producers - Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia - and India.
"If in the end, no consensus can be reached in time, it is possible to transmit the relevant documents for further work to the next meeting We do not consider this a failure at all. Instead, it is a mark of progress, especially progress in the process," says a briefing note for the bloc, published by climate news site RTCC.
block-time published-time 4.30pm GMT
More from the countries on the sharp end of the talks. Suzanne Goldenberg reports from Lima:
I've been talking to Ahmed Sareer, the Maldivian diplomat who will take over leadership of the Alliance of Small Island States, early next year. It's a good reminder of what's at stake for some countries - and of how frustrating they must find the slow pace of these negotiations.
As a low-lying string of islands, the Maldives is dealing with multiple effects of climate change - dying coral reefs, ocean acidification, sea level rise and contamination of its water supply, Sareer said.
On 4 December, the country's desalination plane caught fire, knocking out the country's only source of safe drinking water. It's still not up and running yet.
"How many CoPs [Conference of the Parties] will it take for us to really see any tangible results? We have been going from CoP to CoP and every time we are given so many assurances, and expectations are raised, but the gaps are getting wider," said Sareer.
"Even if you look at the finance, there has been a clear commitment of $100bn a year, but how much are we really being offered? Even when they make those pledges how do we know how much is going to materialise? There is no point of knowing that behind the wall there is a big source of funds available unless we can reach it," he said.
Indian workers and Air Force personnel load emergency supplies of bottled water onto a Boeing C-17 heavy transport aircraft, bound for the Maldives after a fire at a desalination plant affected water supplies. Photograph: --/AFP/Getty Images
block-time published-time 4.15pm GMT
Karl Mathiesen has been talking with the Marshall Islands president, Christopher Loeak. The Pacific island state's president says that although the Lima talks are tense and difficult, "there is a deal to be done and everyone is getting on board".
Marshall Islands president Christopher Loeak. Photograph: HILARY HOSIA/AFP/Getty Images
What is your reaction to the reports that progress in Lima has stalled?
"My team in Lima is reporting that negotiations are tense and difficult, with too much time being spent on procedural haggling. This is disappointing but I am expecting the positive momentum we have seen from Leaders this year to translate into a strong outcome in Lima. It seems that some of those blocking progress have failed to make the leap to seeing climate action not as a threat but as a great opportunity. This is a new world where everyone needs to contribute to the global effort on climate change."
What is your message to countries blocking progress?
"Enough is enough: my country's future is at stake. We expect the world's biggest emitters to take my peoples' plight as seriously as they would their own. How can they expect us to leave Lima without a decision to require countries to explain the targets they put on the table next year? Do they expect us to sign an agreement in Paris without knowing what it all adds up to? This is ultimately what will determine my country's future."
How will the situation in Lima affect the Paris talks?
"As my foreign minister said yesterday, Lima must plant the seeds for success in Paris. Following the UN Climate Summit in September, the People's Climate March in New York, and the most alarming scientific reports we have ever seen, there has never been a stronger mandate for aggressive climate action."
"Paris won't be another Copenhagen [ the 2009 climate summit that floppped ] - the world has changed too much. The world's two biggest emitters - China and the US - are now on the same page and understand the need to act. There is a deal to be done and everyone is getting on board."
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.17pm GMT
block-time published-time 4.03pm GMT
Here's a quick round-up of reaction from Twitter. The current draft text comes in for more flak but gets some credit for progress.
Elizabeth May is a Canadian MP who regularly attends the talks - she says developing countries are angry:
#COP20 pres Pulgar-Vidal addressed working group urging working thru text by 1 pm stock-taking. But dev'g countries angry w text. #climate
- Elizabeth May MP (@ElizabethMay) December 12, 2014
And here's Friends of the Earth:
Lowdown on #COP20 Lima outcome. fails the ppl & doesnt protect food sovereignty. Here's y 1)text has no option requiring a finance commitmnt
- asad rehman (@chilledasad100) December 12, 2014
Lowdown on #COP20 Lima outcome. fails the ppl & doesnt protect food sovereignty. Here's y 1)text has no option requiring a finance commitmnt
- asad rehman (@chilledasad100) December 12, 2014
3/4 Loss and damage is not addressed as a part of countries' contributions #COP20#adp
- asad rehman (@chilledasad100) December 12, 2014
(for more on what "loss and damage" is, see 13.29 update ).
Here's the view from the US NGO, the National Resources Defence Council, a regular UN talks watcher:
Irregardless of decision at #COP20 countries know: (1) they have to come forward w/ bold & ambitious mitigation commitments next yr
- Jake Schmidt - NRDC (@jschmidtnrdc) December 12, 2014
And that of Joss Garman of UK thinktank IPPR:
Final day of #COP20. New cleaned up text contains some good strong rules. If they survive these last hours, Lima will have been a success.
- Joss Garman (@jossgarman) December 12, 2014
The World Bank's climate expert isn't impressed, calling the current wording "vapid".
Whiplash! Real movement and action in partnerships around #COP20 ...and then just read the draft ADP text. Vapid. Come on everyone
- Rachel Kyte (@rkyte365) December 12, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.07pm GMT
block-time published-time 3.51pm GMT
Dan Collyns, one of our reporters at the summit, has an update on India's thoughts and where the divisions lie:
Splits remains on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. While the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, called on Thursday for developing nations not to repeat the mistakes of the past, countries like India, a prominent member of the Like Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) group on Climate Change argue they have the right to lift their people out of poverty.
"If I have to change my current technology, if I have to look to futuristic things, it is going to cost, and someone has to pay this cost," Ashok Lavasa, of the Indian government delegation, told the Guardian.
"The cost should be born by everybody...but more so by people who have also enjoyed the fruits of their development, and historically have occupied a lot of space with the carbon emissions; this space has to be left for other people to grow."
block-time published-time 2.35pm GMT
Despite the criticism of the latest draft text at the summit, Nobel Peace Price winner and former US vice-president Al Gore is pretty boosterish about prospects at Lima. In a video with the conference organisers, he says:
I hope when the gavel falls, it will be seen as a truly historic success, in setting the stage for a successful agreement in Paris one year from this week.
Already so much progress has been made that it's obvious that the spirit of Lima has been extremely powerful in bringing people together from every continent, every income group, from every culture and every national background.
Al Gore.
block-time published-time 2.26pm GMT
One of our journalists, Karl Mathiesen, is currently travelling in the Pacific island states, Kiribati and the Marshall Islands. He reports on the view of Lima from there, a region threatened by rising sea levels:
"Some people know, but I don't care," reckons my taxi driver about the Lima climate talks.
Everyone in the Marshall Islands capital Majuro knows about climate change. Every destructive weather event, from drought to king tide, is blamed on carbon emissions. Major inundations in March and October have ensured people are worried about the threat to their homes.
Most of the Marshallese who have Facebook have watched videos of Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner, the poet who spoke at the UN Climate Summit in New York in September. There is immense pride in her standing up and speaking for them.
But crises here tend to be more immediate - like where the next bag of rice is coming from.
"I just don't see climate change as a daily point of conversation here. The whole issue is generally new to people," says Giff Johnson, the editor of the Marshall Islands Journal. "It's just in the last couple of years that people are starting to become aware of it."
Many of the same people who laud Jetnil-Kijiner complain that Tony de Brum, the foreign minister so prominent in international climate circles, is a jetsetter who spends public money on overseas trips. There is little recognition of his advocacy, the UN climate process or its relevance to these islands.
You can read more from Karl in Kiribati here.
Batiri Tataio, 63, and her grandson Mikaere, 2, of Temaiku on South Tarawa, Kiribati. Photograph: Remi Chauvin
block-time published-time 2.17pm GMT
The BBC's Matt McGrath, in Lima, reports on developing country concerns over the draft text.
Some countries are suspicious that the text being developed here in Lima is an attempt to get round the concept of differentiation [ see 13.09 update ], which is embedded in 1992's UN framework convention on climate change.
The issue has become critical as the chairs of the talks introduced a new draft text that many felt watered down the original commitment [ see 12.07 update ].
A large group of developing nations known as the G77 objected.
"This whole exercise is not meant to rewrite the convention, this is a firm basic position of the G77," said Antonio Marcondes, Brazil's representative at the talks.
"We stand behind the differentiation, we stand behind 'common but differentiated responsibilities', these are issues we hold very strong and these are definite red lines."
block-time published-time 1.35pm GMT
Even the trade unions, who are usually very supportive of the talks, are not happy with the latest version of the text. The TUC notes that a line from previous climate summit texts, about countries "implementing their policies and measures to promote a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs", doesn't appear in the current Lima document.
Frances O'Grady, the union's general secretary, says:
The labour movement is increasingly mobilising to support an ambitious UN climate change treaty in Paris next year. We are conscious that all jobs are at risk without a commitment to emission reductions, adaptation, finance and technology. This is why we have always supported the UN process.
However, the lack of thought being given to the possible effect on workers, added to the absence of references for the need for a just transition, has raised major concerns among the international trade union delegation in Lima.
I just caught up with Philip Pearson, senior policy officer at the TUC. He stressed that unions are right behind the efforts for a climate pact, but the TUC is "really brassed-off" at the lack of a reference at the moment to the dialogue, safety nets for workers and investments that'll be required as high carbon industries (oil, coal, gas, and attendant mining) theoretically shrink and low carbon ones (renewable energy and nuclear power) grow.
"Trade unions are really up for this whole UN climate treaty but we are deeply frustrated by the lack of reference to the effort required," he said.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 2.09pm GMT
block-time published-time 1.29pm GMT
India's Down To Earth magazine, which is reporting from Lima, says it looks like the final text will not include the principle of "loss and damage". This is the idea pushed by some developing countries that they should receive financial compensation for the damage caused by extreme weather which has been exacerbated by rich countries' historical emissions.
Developed countries are unsurprisingly not keen on it, and will point to their $10bn contributions to the separate Green Climate Fund, designed to help poor countries cope with global warming. Karl Mathiesen wrote a good guide for us on loss and damage during the Warsaw talks last year.
block-time published-time 1.16pm GMT
Some reaction to Kerry's speech.
Samantha Smith, leader of WWF International's Global Climate and Energy Initiative, seems pleased at his intervention:
Negotiators in Lima must not forget that we are facing a planetary emergency. Secretary Kerry is correct in highlighting the science that tells us we are already facing unprecedented impacts from climate change, and that to steer the world's climate to stay below 2C global warming, we have to act now.
We need countries to step up financial commitments and to ensure that we have a strong negotiating text to discuss in Paris. We cannot afford to fail the vulnerable people of the world who are depending on us to ensure that they have a world worth living in.
While Friends of the Earth US is unimpressed with what it perceives as the gap between Kerry's rhetoric and US action. Senior analyst Karen Orenstein said:
It is past time to put words into action. The emissions cuts the US has put forward put us on a path for a global temperature increase well beyond the already dangerous 2C level. Secretary Kerry said, 'If you're a big developed nation and you are not helping to lead, then you're part of the problem.' Regrettably, the US is a tremendous part of the problem, and as the hundreds of thousands of people on the streets of Lima and New York have demanded, this must change immediately.
The marches she's referring to are the thousands who marched in Lima on Wednesday, and the hundreds of thousands of people who marched in New York and around the world in September.
block-time published-time 1.09pm GMT
UK-based blog, Carbon Brief, has compiled a very good jargon-buster explaining the acronym soup that is served up at all the climate negotiations. For example, one of the key principles bandied around is "common but differentiated responsibility". Mat Hope explains it succinctly thus:
Developing countries often talk about ensuring any new global deal respects the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. This basically means designing a deal where those with the greatest historical responsibility for climate change and the means to implement low carbon policies take the biggest and earliest steps to cut emissions.
This principle was enshrined in the UNFCCC, which separated countries into three groups: Annex I, Annex II, and non-Annex I.
And yes, it even explains what UNFCCC stands for too.
block-time published-time 1.02pm GMT
Suzanne Goldenberg has been analysing the detail of Kerry's speech yesterday ( see 11.34 update ). She writes:
John Kerry, in his speech to the meeting on Thursday afternoon, inserted some pointed language that reads as if it were a last-minute addition intended to try and get the talks moving.
He called on negotiators to set aside the old divisions between rich and poor countries and recognise that it would take a global effort to fight climate change. "No single country including the United States can solve this problem or foot this bill alone," he said. "If we somehow eliminated all of our carbon pollution, guess what? That still wouldn't be enough."
Nor would it be enough if China or India cut all their emissions, Kerry went on. "If even one or two major economies fail to respond to the threat, it will counter-act much of the good work that the rest of the world does."
In a slight at countries such as Australia and Canada which have backtracked on climate promises, Kerry said said industrialised countries in particular had to step up. "If you are a big developed nation and you are not helping to lead then you are part of the problem," he said.
Kerry also said countries should be heartened by the example set by the US and China which jointly agreed last month to cut carbon pollution.
"That is a historic milestone and it should send a message to all of us that the road blocks we have had for decades can be removed from our path."
John Kerry giving his speech at the Lima conference. Photograph: Rodrigo Abd/AP
block-time published-time 12.56pm GMT
The 'Adopt a Negotiator' project has posted a line-by-line analysis of the latest draft deal, which they brand "a lowest common denominator text". Among other criticisms, they say the text is too vague in its language and the level of ambition too low.
block-time published-time 12.41pm GMT
According to the UN's latest timetable, Lima should be all wrapped up by 2pm today. Don't hold your breath though. The 2011 talks, in Durban, ran nearly two days over...
block-time published-time 12.34pm GMT
Suzanne Goldenberg reports on the overnight negotiations:
Late last night, the heads of the working group went to Manuel Pulgar Vidal and admitted they were stuck. He then instructed them to go back, and give him some kind of text he could work with. They produced the seven-page draft, and they will go on from here trying to produce some kind of outcome. There are "stocktakings" at 10am and 1pm local time that should give a sense of where negotiations are heading.
block-time published-time 12.27pm GMT
AP has a bit more on the splits behind exactly what a pledge on climate action looks like ( see my earlier update about the latest draft text ):
Rich countries insist the pledges should focus on efforts to control emissions and are resisting demands to include promises of financing to help poor countries tackle climate change.
Top carbon polluter China and other major developing countries oppose plans for a review process so the pledges can be compared against each other before Paris.
Brazil's top negotiator, Antonio Marcondes, called the review an "unnecessary effort" that would detract from the main goal of reaching an agreement next year.
block-time published-time 12.19pm GMT
France, which as host for the crucial summit in Paris next year has a huge vested interest in the success of Lima, has said it's quite possible some of the key issues will get bumped until 2015.
Laurence Tubiana, the top French climate ambassador, told climate news site RTCC : "Some issues will not be resolved here, but it's fair enough, if they are too big it's about changing the real ambition of the whole world. But we can have clarity."
RTCC also notes that the atmosphere at the talks so far has been "remarkably happy", in contrast to Warsaw last year, which saw walk-outs by NGOs and furious clashes between blocs of countries.
block-time published-time 12.07pm GMT
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the body which runs the talks with the Peruvian hosts, has published the latest version of the draft text. A quick look shows huge sections still up for grabs, with multiple options listed for key paragraphs.
I'll try not to bore you too much with excerpts from the text, but take for example this passage.
UN draft text at Lima Photograph: UN
Negotiators are still haggling over just what a pledge to tackle climate change should constitute. In the jargon, a pledge is an 'intended nationally determined contribution'.
Option two is the modestly more progressive one, where countries agree to actually do more than they're doing already to cut emissions.
But there's also a third, stronger option which some countries are pushing, to have more than just cutting emissions count as a pledge - they want climate financing and adapting to warmer temperatures to also count as a pledge.
UN Lima draft text option three Photograph: UN
Oxfam's not too impressed by the current state of the text. Its policy adviser, Jan Kowalzig, says:
This text needs significant improvement. The options presented are like a choose your own adventure novel, some could put us on a barely workable path heading into Paris, while others may doom us to a dangerous future. The ingredients for some progress in Lima are on the table, but negotiators need to have the courage to use them. Unless the text improves, whatever options negotiators choose over the next day will leave many very difficult issues unresolved and keep the world headed down a treacherous road towards extreme warming.
Looking through the draft text, it appears the options 1-3 throughout on a scale from 1 being weakest to 3 being strongest.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.31pm GMT
block-time published-time 11.34am GMT
UN climate talks enter final hours
Behind a Peruvian army base near Lima, ministers and officials from nearly two hundred countries are trying today to agree on a draft text to avoid dangerous global warming.
The hosts, led by Peru's environment minister Manuel Pulgar Vidal, say that officially there will be a deal by noon local time (5pm GMT - I'll use local times from here on in). But judging from previous Conferences of the Parties, as the annual UN climate summits are called, the climate talks could run late into the evening, and quite likely continue on Saturday.
As our reporter on the ground, Suzanne Goldenberg, noted last night, progress has been slow. At the time of publishing, negotiators had agreed just a single paragraph of the text, which is to form the basis of climate pact to be formally signed at Paris next year. From our story :
"We are going backwards," said Alden Meyer, who monitors the climate negotiations for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Those at the talks still have every expectation that Lima will produce some kind of agreement by Friday evening, or more likely early Saturday morning - but the paralysis is in stark contrast to the upbeat backdrop to the summit's opening.
"I am not really sure that we will see a clear outcome coming here in Lima," said the former Mexican president, Felipe Calderón, who addressed the meeting.
By Thursday morning the text, which had started at a reasonable six pages, had ballooned to about 50, with negotiators throwing in their objections to almost every single clause. Just one section, paragraph 34, on countries intensifying engagement in the years up to 2020, has been agreed by negotiators.
In a successful negotiation, observers say that by this point officials would be whittling down to the final text to a manageable size.
"We have seen the laggards throwing in language of all kinds into the negotiating document," said Tony de Brum, the foreign minister of the Marshall Islands.
US Secretary of State John Kerry addresses the UN climate conference in Lima. Photograph: Rodrigo Abd/AP
Thursday also saw John Kerry, the US secretary of state, address the meeting. He didn't announce any new measures or financing, but told delegates the science of climate change was "screaming" at them to act on carbon emissions. Here's the full speech, and an excerpt:
Rest assured, if we fail, future generations will not and should not forgive those who ignore this moment, no matter their reasoning. Future generations will judge our effort not just as a policy failure, but as a massive, collective moral failure of historic consequence, particularly if we're just bogged down in abstract debates. They will want to know how we together could possibly have been so blind, so ideological, so dysfunctional, and frankly, so stubborn that we failed to act on knowledge that was confirmed by so many scientists in so many studies over such a long period of time and documented by so much evidence.
The truth is we will have no excuse worth using. The science of climate change is science, and it is screaming at us, warning us, compelling us - hopefully - to act. Ninety-seven percent of peer- reviewed climate studies have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible. And I've been involved, as many of you have, in public policy debates for a long time. It's pretty rare to get a simple majority or a supermajority of studies to say the same thing, but 97 percent over 20-plus years - that is a dramatic statement of fact that no one of good conscience or good faith should be able to ignore.
Now you only have to look at the most recent reports to see in all too vivid detail the stark reality that we are faced with. Scientists agree that the emission of climate pollutants like carbon dioxide, methane, soot, hydrofluorocarbons all contribute to climate change. In fact, basic science tells us that life on earth wouldn't exist at the heretofore 57 degrees average temperature Fahrenheit which allows life to exist. Without a greenhouse effect, life wouldn't exist, and if the greenhouse effect is good enough to provide you with life itself, obviously, logic suggests that it's also going to act like a greenhouse if you add more gases and they're trapped and you heat up the earth. This is pretty logical stuff, and it's astounding to me that even in the United States Senate and elsewhere, we have people who doubt it.
And here's the video:
As the New York Times notes, a deal announced by China and the US last month on tackling emissions has generated a lot of warmth towards the US at the talks, where it is often painted as the pantomime villain:
When it comes to global warming, the United States has long been viewed as one of the world's worst actors. American officials have been booed and hissed during international climate talks, bestowed with mock "Fossil of the Day" awards for resisting treaties, and widely condemned for demanding that other nations cut their fossil fuel emissions while refusing, year after year, to take action at home.
Suddenly, all that has changed.
At the global climate change negotiations now wrapping up in Peru, American negotiators are being met with something wildly unfamiliar: cheers, applause, thanks and praise.
...
The U.S. is now credible on climate change," said Laurence Tubiana, the French climate change ambassador to the United Nations, who is leading efforts to broker a new agreement to be signed by world leaders in Paris next year.
Veterans of two decades of climate change negotiations called the turnaround in America's image profound.
"Countries got weary of negotiations with the U.S.; it got tough in negotiations, but it didn't deliver," said Yvo de Boer, the former executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. "Now the U.S. has policies in place to deliver on its word."
Stay tuned here for the latest news and developments from Lima. You can email me at adam.vaughan@theguardian.com and tweet me @adamvaughan_uk.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.45am GMT
Climate talks: summit chief warns 'we need to work' as deadline passes - as it happened Updates and reaction from the UN climate summit in Peru, where nearly 200 countries are trying to agree the draft text for a deal to avoid dangerous global warming false theguardian.com true http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/12/12/1418402688922/9feb7e47-618e-471c-9e5a-234761c5e05a-140x84.jpeg 8101 false 453416761 false 548accc7e4b06c3029c156dd false Adam Vaughan in London and Alan Yuhas in New York false 2208747 UK false 2014-12-15T11:30:00+00:00
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
67 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 13, 2014 Saturday
Late Edition - Final
Peru Is Indignant After Greenpeace Makes Its Mark on Ancient Site
BYLINE: By WILLIAM NEUMAN; Andrea Zarate contributed reporting from Lima, Peru.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 7
LENGTH: 716 words
CARACAS, Venezuela -- An expression of concern by the environmental group Greenpeace about the carbon footprint was marred this week by real footprints -- in a fragile, and restricted, landscape near the Nazca lines, ancient man-made designs etched in the Peruvian desert.
The Peruvian authorities said activists from the group damaged a patch of desert when they placed a large sign that promoted renewable energy near a set of lines that form the shape of a giant hummingbird.
The sign was meant to draw the attention of world leaders, reporters and others who were in Lima, the Peruvian capital, for a United Nations summit meeting aimed at reaching an agreement to address climate change. The meeting was scheduled to end Friday but negotiations were expected to continue into Saturday.
Greenpeace issued a statement apologizing for the stunt at the archaeological site, about 225 miles south of Lima. Its international executive director, Kumi Naidoo, flew to Lima, but the Peruvian authorities were seething over the episode, which they said had scarred one of the country's most treasured national symbols.
''We are not ready to accept apologies from anybody,'' said Luis Jaime Castillo, the vice minister for cultural heritage. ''Let them apologize after they repair the damage.''
He added, however, that repair might not be possible.
Mr. Castillo said that about a dozen activists walked more than a mile through the desert to place the sign, made up of large yellow letters, near the hummingbird, one of the archaeological site's best known figures. Entry to the area is forbidden.
The lines, etched into the desert more than 1,000 years ago by an ancient culture known today as the Nazca, form enormous figures spanning hundreds of feet, including birds and other animals, plants and geometric shapes. Their purpose remains a mystery but they are believed to have had a ceremonial use.
Mr. Castillo said that the desert around the lines is made up of white sand capped by a darker rocky layer. By walking through the desert, he said, the interlopers disturbed the upper layer, exposing the lighter sand below.
''A bad step, a heavy step, what it does is that it marks the ground forever,'' he said. ''There is no known technique to restore it the way it was.''
He said that the group walked in single file through the desert, meaning that they made a deep track in the ground. Then they spread out in the area where they laid the letters, making many more marks over a wide area.
''The hummingbird was in a pristine area, untouched,'' Mr. Castillo said. ''Perhaps it was the best figure.''
Mr. Castillo said that the culture ministry had sent out a team with drone aircraft equipped with cameras so that they could evaluate the damage without entering the delicate area.
He said that the harm was both physical and symbolic.
''This stupidity has co-opted part of the identity of our heritage that will now be forever associated with the scandal of Greenpeace,'' he said.
The sign, made of cloth letters, said, ''Time for change! The future is renewable. Greenpeace.''
A video posted online shows the activists tramping across the desert around dawn, their shoes crunching over the dry ground.
''The impact of climate change is more catastrophic every day,'' one of them says to the camera after the sign has been laid out.
In a written statement the group said it was ''deeply sorry.''
''We fully understand that this looks bad,'' the statement said. ''Rather than relay an urgent message of hope and possibility to the leaders gathering at the Lima U.N. climate talks, we came across as careless and crass.''
The group said the stunt took place early Monday and involved activists from Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Chile, Germany and Italy. It said they took the letters with them when they left the area.
The group said it would cooperate with authorities. But on Friday a spokesman in Lima, Mike Townsley, said that the activists involved in the incident had left Peru and that the group had not given their names to government officials.
Annie Leonard, the executive director of Greenpeace in the United States, said the stunt showed ''a complete disregard for the culture of Peru and the importance of protecting sacred sites everywhere.'' She added, ''It is a shame that all of Greenpeace must now bear.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/13/world/americas/peru-is-indignant-after-greenpeace-makes-its-mark-on-ancient-site.html
LOAD-DATE: December 13, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: A message from Greenpeace was placed near an ancient hummingbird geoglyph on Monday during a United Nations summit meeting on climate change in Peru.
Peruvian officials were outraged that the activists entered the restricted area, trampling ancient, undisturbed grounds. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY RODRIGO ABD/ASSOCIATED PRESS)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
68 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 12, 2014 Friday 9:51 PM GMT
Lima climate summit extended as poor countries demand more from rich;
Talks stumble amid rising frustration over 'ridiculously low' cash commitments offered by rich nations to help pay for emissions cuts
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg in Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 801 words
Climate talks in Lima ran into extra time amid rising frustration from developing countries at the "ridiculously low" commitments from rich countries to help pay for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
The talks - originally scheduled to wrap up at 12pm after 10 days - are now expected to run well into Saturday , as negotiators huddle over a new draft text many glimpsed for the first time only morning.
The Lima negotiations began on a buoyant note after the US, China and the EU came forward with new commitments to cut carbon pollution. But they were soon brought back down to earth over the perennial divide between rich and poor countries in the negotiations: how should countries share the burden for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and who should pay?
The talks were designed to draft a blueprint for a global deal to fight climate change, due to be adopted in Paris late next year. But developing countries argued that before signing on they needed to see greater commitments that the industrialised countries would keep to their end of a bargain to provide the money needed to fight climate change. After 10 days of talks, developing countries argued that those assurances were not strong enough.
By midweek, a little over $10bn had been raised for a green climate fund, intended to help poor countries invest in clean energy technology. That was below the initial target of $15bn and many of those funds will be distributed over several years.
It was also unclear how industrialised countries could be held to an earlier promise to mobilise $100bn a year for climate finance by 2020, negotiators from developing countries said. "We are disappointed," said India's Prakash Javadekar. "It is ridiculous. It is ridiculously low." Javadekar said the pledges to the green climate fund amounted to backsliding. "We are upset that 2011, 2012, 2013 - three consecutive years - the developed world provided $10bn each year for climate action support to the developing world, but now they have reduced it. Now they are saying $10bn is for four years, so it is $2.5bn," he said.
The frustration - with the lack of climate finance as well as other aspects of the draft text - was widespread among developing countries, especially those in the gravest danger from climate change.
There have been more than 20 years of Conference of the Parties (CoP) meetings, such as those at Lima, with little in the way of concrete outcomes, said Ahmed Sareer, the Maldivian negotiator who is about to take over the leadership of the Alliance of Small Island States.
"How many CoPs will it take for us to really see any tangible results? We have been going from CoP to CoP and every time we are given so many assurances, and expectations are raised, but the gaps are getting wider," he said.
"There has been a clear commitment of $100bn a year but how are we really being offered? Even when they make those pledges how do we know how much is going to materialise? There is no point of knowing that behind the wall there is a big source of funds available unless we can reach it," he said.
"We are told it is there in a nice show case, but we don't get to meet it. We don't get to access it. These are difficult issues for us."
The seven-page draft text under discussion so far remains in a very raw state, with negotiators asked to choose between three options on virtually every major issue of contention.
But the multiple-choice format makes it evident that the old fault lines between rich and poor countries remain.
In addition to finance, one of the biggest areas of contentious is "differentiation" in UN parlance - which countries should bear the burden of cutting emissions that cause climate change.
The US and other industrialised countries require all countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
That would be a departure from the original UN classification of the 1990s - which absolved China, India and other developing countries which are now major carbon polluters - of cutting their emissions.
Developing countries are suspicious that the text being developed in Lima is an attempt to rewrite those old guidelines.
"I am certain that developing countries the majority of them will have a problem with the way they framed responsibility. Most developing countries will be concerned about that," said Tasneem Essop, head of strategy for WWF.
Countries are also divided over the initial commitments countries are expected to make on fighting climate change - known as "intended nationally determined contributions".
Rich countries, including the US, only want to commit to carbon cuts. Developing countries want those commitments to include finance for climate adaptation.
The rich-poor divide also holds over the issue of monitoring the scale of those commitments - with China, India and other countries opposed to outside review.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
69 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 12, 2014 Friday 8:08 PM GMT
Lima climate summit extended as early optimism is overtaken by discord;
Talks stumble amid rising frustration over 'ridiculously low' cash commitments for emissions cuts from rich nations
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg in Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 801 words
Climate talks in Lima ran into extra time amid rising frustration from developing countries at the "ridiculously low" commitments from rich countries to help pay for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
The talks - originally scheduled to wrap up at 12pm after 10 days - are now expected to run well intoSaturday , as negotiators huddle over a new draft text many glimpsed for the first time only morning.
The Lima negotiations began on a buoyant note after the US, China and the EU came forward with new commitments to cut carbon pollution. But they were soon brought back down to earth over the perennial divide between rich and poor countries in the negotiations: how should countries share the burden for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and who should pay?
The talks were designed to draft a blueprint for a global deal to fight climate change, due to be adopted in Paris late next year. But developing countries argued that before signing on they needed to see greater commitments that the industrialised countries would keep to their end of a bargain to provide the money needed to fight climate change. After 10 days of talks, developing countries argued that those assurances were not strong enough.
By midweek, a little over $10bn had been raised for a green climate fund, intended to help poor countries invest in clean energy technology. That was below the initial target of $15bn and many of those funds will be distributed over several years.
It was also unclear how industrialised countries could be held to an earlier promise to mobilise $100bn a year for climate finance by 2020, negotiators from developing countries said. "We are disappointed," said India's Prakash Javadekar. "It is ridiculous. It is ridiculously low." Javadekar said the pledges to the green climate fund amounted to backsliding. "We are upset that 2011, 2012, 2013 - three consecutive years - the developed world provided $10bn each year for climate action support to the developing world, but now they have reduced it. Now they are saying $10bn is for four years, so it is $2.5bn," he said.
The frustration - with the lack of climate finance as well as other aspects of the draft text - was widespread among developing countries, especially those in the gravest danger from climate change.
There have been more than 20 years of Conference of the Parties (CoP) meetings, such as those at Lima, with little in the way of concrete outcomes, said Ahmed Sareer, the Maldivian negotiator who is about to take over the leadership of the Alliance of Small Island States.
"How many CoPs will it take for us to really see any tangible results? We have been going from CoP to CoP and every time we are given so many assurances, and expectations are raised, but the gaps are getting wider," he said.
"There has been a clear commitment of $100bn a year but how are we really being offered? Even when they make those pledges how do we know how much is going to materialise? There is no point of knowing that behind the wall there is a big source of funds available unless we can reach it," he said.
"We are told it is there in a nice show case, but we don't get to meet it. We don't get to access it. These are difficult issues for us."
The seven-page draft text under discussion so far remains in a very raw state, with negotiators asked to choose between three options on virtually every major issue of contention.
But the multiple-choice format makes it evident that the old fault lines between rich and poor countries remain.
In addition to finance, one of the biggest areas of contentious is "differentiation" in UN parlance - which countries should bear the burden of cutting emissions that cause climate change.
The US and other industrialised countries require all countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
That would be a departure from the original UN classification of the 1990s - which absolved China, India and other developing countries which are now major carbon polluters - of cutting their emissions.
Developing countries are suspicious that the text being developed in Lima is an attempt to rewrite those old guidelines.
"I am certain that developing countries the majority of them will have a problem with the way they framed responsibility. Most developing countries will be concerned about that," said Tasneem Essop, head of strategy for WWF.
Countries are also divided over the initial commitments countries are expected to make on fighting climate change - known as "intended nationally determined contributions".
Rich countries, including the US, only want to commit to carbon cuts. Developing countries want those commitments to include finance for climate adaptation.
The rich-poor divide also holds over the issue of monitoring the scale of those commitments - with China, India and other countries opposed to outside review.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
70 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 12, 2014 Friday 6:19 PM GMT
Lima climate talks agree on just one paragraph of deal with 24 hours left;
As crucial UN climate summit in Peru enters final hours, negotiators have made little progress on draft textLive coverage of the final day at Lima talks
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg in Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 747 words
Negotiators working on a deal to fight climate change have agreed on just a single paragraph of text, casting a shadow over the prospects for a strong outcome in Lima.
The talks - scheduled to end at noon local time on Friday after 10 full days - are intended to provide a clear blueprint for a global agreement to fight climate change by the end of next year.
But while negotiators descended on Lima in a positive mood, buoyed by recent commitments from the US and China, the talks have fallen into a rut.
"We are going backwards," said Alden Meyer, who monitors the climate negotiations for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Those at the talks still have every expectation that Lima will produce some kind of agreement by Friday evening, or more likely early Saturday morning - but the paralysis is in stark contrast to the upbeat backdrop to the summit's opening.
"I am not really sure that we will see a clear outcome coming here in Lima," said the former Mexican president, Felipe Calderón, who addressed the meeting.
By Thursday morning the text, which had started at a reasonable six pages, had ballooned to about 50, with negotiators throwing in their objections to almost every single clause. Just one section, paragraph 34, on countries intensifying engagement in the years up to 2020, has been agreed by negotiators.
In a successful negotiation, observers say that by this point officials would be whittling down to the final text to a manageable size.
"We have seen the laggards throwing in language of all kinds into the negotiating document," said Tony de Brum, the foreign minister of the Marshall Islands.
At this late stage, it was expected the Peruvian hosts will take over from the bureaucrats and take personal charge of the negotiating texts to reach a successful conclusion by Friday or - judging by the way events have unfolded in past meetings - somewhere in the pre-dawn hours on Saturday morning.
At contention in the talks are the old dividing lines on how rich and poor countries should share responsibility for climate change: should all countries be required to do their bit to cut greenhouse gas emissions or only the industrialised countries?
The US and Europe have argued for years that all countries must do their bit. China, which last month reached an historic agreement with the US to cut carbon pollution, India and other countries are balking at this.
"You have got this weird dynamic where China has stood up with their president and president Obama and committed to putting forward economy wide commitments but their formal negotiating position is that those kinds of commitments shouldn't happen," Meyer said.
There is also deep division about the next critical phase of a move towards a climate deal in Paris: the March 2015 deadline for countries to announce what they will do to cut greenhouse gas emissions after 2020.
Developing countries are pushing the industrialised countries to include commitments to help poor countries deal with climate change. But the US and Europe argue it is impractical to expect commitments over climate finance in such a distant timeline.
An additional sticking point is monitoring of those pledges. China in particular is opposed to an official audit of its pledges. "Essentially China is saying 'we will show you our cards but don't read them'," De Brum said.
The United Nations climate negotiations are by default a messy process. The task of herding 196 countries - rich, poor, oil producers or clean energy pioneers - towards consensus is never easy.
However, negotiators always manage to produce some kind of a deal in the end.
The risk for Lima however is that the deal could be much weaker than needed to curb warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels, the agreed goal of the talks.
"One of the fundamental flaws of the negotiations is the lack of a clear global goal for limiting global warming based on science," said Lidy Nacpil of Jubilee South Asia Pacific from the Philippines.
"The Lima talks are setting us up to risk crashing that physical limit," said Nacpil. " If countries are not required to make legal contributions on finance and technology there will be no justice - and if there's no justice there cannot be a deal."
However, the meeting in Lima started in a buoyant mood, helped in part by pledges of nearly $10bn (£6.4bn) - including $3bn from the US - to the Green Climate Fund, a mechanism for rich countries to give financial aid to help the world's poorest countries to cope with climate change.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
71 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 12, 2014 Friday 12:00 PM GMT
Investors question forecasts from ExxonMobil and other oil companies;
As climate talks wind down in Lima, investors are pressuring fossil fuel companies to account for climate change in business strategies. Yet many still forge ahead as if little has changed
BYLINE: Andrew Logan
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 1168 words
A powerful storm of market forces is rippling across the fossil fuel industry: plummeting oil prices, weakening global oil demand, growing momentum for carbon-reducing regulations, and the rapid growth of renewable energy. In just the past few days, oil prices hit a five-year low of $61 a barrel and the Bank of England launched a review of the industry's stability, including the potential harmful impacts of stranded fossil fuel assets on the economy.
And all this is happening against the backdrop of international climate negotiations. As country representatives gather in Lima to build momentum towards an international climate deal next year in Paris, investors around the world are stepping up scrutiny of the fossil fuel industry.
From shareholder resolutions that have already been filed with seven companies as part of the 2015 proxy season in the US - including ExxonMobil, Hess and Marathon Oil - to filings this month with BP and Shell backed by 100 European investors, they're pressing the companies they own to address the escalating financial risks that are becoming more apparent with each passing day. Investors are especially concerned about potentially wasteful spending to develop new fossil fuel reserves that would be unprofitable at today's oil prices.
More than $200bn of the riskiest projects have already been canceled or delayed due to these market shifts - most of them oil sands projects in Canada and offshore projects in the deepest waters in places like west Africa and the Gulf of Mexico. Today's crude oil prices are nearly $40 a barrel lower than the prices these projects will need to break even, according to Goldman Sachs. And this week, Bank of America warned that crude prices will drop to $50 a barrel over the coming months.
Yet despite all this, many of the industry's biggest players are still forging ahead as if little has changed.
Just this week, ExxonMobil issued its annual energy outlook projecting 35% growth in global energy demand - with oil being the dominant fuel - by 2040, a "business-as-usual" perspective that stands in striking disregard of global trends affecting the sector. Exxon's chief strategist went so far as to suggest that renewables "are just not ready for primetime" - a statement at odds with the fact that wind, solar and other green power sources are growing at a record clip and already produce 22% of the world's electricity, according to the International Energy Agency.
At in-person meetings with board members and top management, investors are questioning the accuracy of these companies' oil and gas demand forecasts. They are encouraging companies to spend less on costly, high carbon-intensive projects, which the IEA says will likely not be viable as the world reduces its reliance on fossil fuels and transitions to a low-carbon future.
They are also calling on companies to disclose how high the price of oil needs to be for their highest-cost projects to break even, and to revaluate the types of projects they're financing as fossil fuel demand declines. After all, countries such as the US and China, which agreed last month to significantly reduce carbon emissions over the next decade, expect to use less, not more, fossil fuels in the future.
Investors who are engaging with oil and gas companies in the coming months will be armed with a new set of expectations, which outlines key questions that senior oil and gas executives and board members should be considering as they navigate today's fast-changing energy landscape. The Investor Expectations: Oil and Gas Company Strategy was published this week by Ceres' Investor Network on Climate, the European Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, the Investors Group on Climate Change in Australia and New Zealand, and the Asia Investor Group on Climate Change.
Investors want stronger climate policies
Further complicating the fossil fuel industry's future is growing appetite - from the US, China and the European Union - to sign an international climate agreement next year in Paris.
Investors have already made it clear they want stronger climate policies. At the UN Climate Summit in September, for example, more than 350 investors representing over $24tn in assets called for an ambitious international agreement, including meaningful carbon pricing and an end to fossil fuel subsidies.
The resolutions and upcoming engagements build on the Carbon Asset Risk Initiative, an effort - launched last year by Ceres, Carbon Tracker and 75 investors - aimed at 45 of the world's largest fossil fuel companies. Most of the companies have responded to a detailed letter that investors sent to the companies a year ago, including BHP Billiton, Eni, ExxonMobil, Shell, Southern Company, Statoil and Vale.
As the disclosures reveal, most companies recognize that climate change poses real risks that warrant action. Several companies even acknowledged the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's conclusions that the world is on a path to 4C-5C degrees of warming, a scenario that scientists and groups like the World Bank say would be catastrophic to the environment and the global economy.
In their written responses, however, most of the companies continue to rely on "business-as-usual" assumptions. These support aggressive capital spending and rising global oil demand until at least 2030 while dismissing the idea of a faster transition towards a low-carbon economy that an increasing number of businesses, investors, citizens and governments demand.
As unlikely as the fossil fuel majors think low-carbon scenarios might be, the shifting and increasingly unfavorable dynamics facing the industry are not going away anytime soon. Investors are increasingly asking the tough questions about how to reconcile the changing dynamics of the industry - plummeting oil prices, weakening global oil demand, growing momentum for carbon-reducing regulations and the rapid growth of renewable energy - with their own biased fossil fuel forecasts.
If the growing momentum in the investor community is any indication, it won't be long before we start getting the answers we need.
Andrew Logan is the director of the oil and gas program at Ceres, a sustainability nonprofit mobilizing business leadership on climate change and other global challenges. Ceres also directs the US-based Investor Network on Climate Risk, a network of 110 institutional investors with collective assets totaling about $13tn.
Read more stories like this:
Financial systems must consider extreme weather, or risk condemning millions to die
10 things you need to know about social and environmental investing
Brought to you by EY: Building sustainable businesses by mixing profit with purpose
The finance hub is funded by EY. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled 'brought to you by'. Find out more here.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
72 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 12, 2014 Friday 11:20 AM GMT
International law stays silent on the responsibility for climate change;
Climate change affects everything from public health to migration patterns. So why has the legal response to a global problem been so weak?
BYLINE: Stephen Humphreys
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 1168 words
Climate change hurts innocent people. It puts ordinary people, who for the most part have not contributed in any way to global warming, at extraordinary risk.
The IPPC's Climate Change 2014 Synthesis report makes for sobering reading when they write about the consequences of climate change: "injury and death due to more intense heat waves and fires"; floods and droughts, and a rise in "foodborne and waterborne diseases".
This risk is not just a matter of extreme weather events, such as the heatwave in Russia that took an estimated 55,000 lives in 2010 or last year's typhoon Haiyan, recording the fastest wind speeds on record. It is also the intensifying effect climate change has on other intractable global problems such as war, famine, and economic migration. Repeated hot summers contributed to a spike in droughts across Syria, for example, triggering hardship and riots that culminated in the vicious civil war now underway.
In 1992 the nations of the world entered a binding agreement to stop "dangerous anthropogenic interference" with the earth's atmosphere. In the two decades since, that obligation has failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; quite the contrary, as levels have since soared to rates unthinkable in 1992. The United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC), as the 1992 agreement is known, has sent a yearly caravan of politicians, activists and lawyers to some of the world's finest resorts to thrash out a binding agreement - but so far with little effect. (Hopes are still pinned on finding common ground at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris next year).
Elsewhere, the law has had nothing to say on this important issue. The global economy is underpinned by law, but you would think it had nothing to do with climate change. Climate-related cases have been absent from international courts - even from disputes involving human rights, investment or the environment. While there have been cases heard in some national courts, particularly in the US, they do not progress far.
The weak legal response to climate change means that big polluters are getting off lightly. It is clear that 60% of proven oil reserves must be left in the ground if we are to have even a remote chance of limiting global warming to two degrees. Yet oil companies and exporters continue to drill and explore, to enjoy their assets and hedge against future losses, as though climate change were a mere financial risk rather than an existential threat to peoples' lives and livelihoods.
The world of international law is behaving as though the problem of climate change does not exist.
Investment law
A significant case was decided recently by a panel of international arbitrators in The Hague. Yukos versus Russia involved the compensation of five named shareholders in Mikhail Khodorkhovsky's former oil company, Yukos, which was driven to bankruptcy - allegedly by Russian tax policy. The case is noteworthy as it involves probably the largest arbitration award in history, at $50bn (£31.8bn).
The case is a reminder of just how much power a three-person international panel can wield over national tax policy, allowing them to take vast quantities of money from Russian taxpayers and put it into the hands of private shareholders. It is also notable for the methods by which the panel arrived at this extraordinary sum. The number represents a portion of the money the shareholders were held to have lost through sales of oil that would have been extracted between 2004 and 2011, had Yukos not been bankrupted first.
In other words, the panel ruled that between 2004 and 2011, with greenhouse gas emissions rising at record rates worldwide, those who had played a part in environmental destruction (and profited from it) should nevertheless be compensated to the tune for not having been free to produce more greenhouse gasses.
Put like this the ruling seems bizarre, but as any lawyer will tell you the panel was only ruling on the issues as presented. Both Yukos and Russia recommended the panel follow the indexed market price for oil and gas in Russia over the period, which generally rose. The overwhelming public interest in stemming climate change was absent from the proceedings and from the court's calculations. The human, social, environmental costs were irrelevant or, as economists like to say, "externalised".
International trade law
Unfortunately, the same problem also afflicts other areas of international law. One obvious policy for any state serious about addressing climate change would be to impose low carbon standards on the production of ordinary everyday goods such as meat, mobile phones, and plastics. But if you impose standards on goods at home, you must also impose them on imports or domestic industry will become uncompetitive and suffer.
Does international trade law allow states to impose low-carbon standards on imported goods? The answer is yes and no. A low or zero-carbon import policy is almost certain to violate World Trade Organization (WTO) law. There may be viable policies but they will be time consuming and expensive to design, and there is no guarantee the WTO's principal court won't slap down any such policy on a technicality. No country has yet tried.
Why has the WTO not taken more proactive steps to tackle climate change? And why has the estimated $600bn (£382bn) in annual subsidies to fossil fuels never been challenged, while paltry subsidies to support renewable energy technologies have been stopped?
Human rights law
Given the self-evident harms inflicted by climate change on internationally protected human rights to health, food, water, shelter and to life itself, one might expect human rights law to provide a viable route to mount a challenge. But this has proved complicated. Many of the principal victims of climate change do not live in the countries where emissions are highest, a key feature of climate injustice. This makes it difficult or impossible to sue.
Where people directly affected by the changing climate already live in high-emitting countries such as the US, Canada, Australia or the European nations, human rights may yet provide some effective relief. Litigation is beginning to happen in some of these places, but there are still significant hurdles.
As regards harm to the climate, courts are faced with lengthy and complicated causal chains that appear at first sight quite unlike the existing case law. Courts need imagination in these cases, but so far they have rarely displayed it.
More articles like this:
Philanthropreneurship: welcome to the new age of philanthropy
An economic system that supports people and planet is still possible
Society must call business' bluff on its fixation with profit maximisation
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
73 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 12, 2014 Friday 12:03 AM GMT
Merchants of Doubt review - strategic cunning of climate-change sceptics;
This depressing documentary finds oil companies repurposing the tactics of big tobacco in attempts to fog public opinion
BYLINE: Peter Bradshaw
SECTION: FILM
LENGTH: 198 words
Star Rating: 3 stars
Robert Kenner addresses a topic last raised, more splenetically, in Craig Rosebraugh's 2012 film Greedy Lying Bastards : the growth industry of climate-change doubt: "denial" doesn't do justice to its strategic cunning and potency. Like Rosebraugh, Kenner tells us that big oil is using the same tactics - and often the same personnel - as big tobacco: set up any number of supposedly independent thinktanks, get plausible professionals on the (mouthwatering) payroll, and just sow the seeds of doubt. You undermine conviction, filibuster government action, fog public opinion, get brazen blowhards to shout loudly on Fox News. And the people best at this are the ageing, neocon attack dogs, veterans of the tobacco wars, who in the evening of their lives find a thrilling new purpose in climate change doubt-production. The subject strangely brings back memories of Robert Stone's 2013 documentary Pandora's Promise, which endorsed the environmental pro-nuclear case and had startling footage of Margaret Thatcher denouncing fossil fuels and man-made climate change because she was in favour of nuclear energy. Merchants of Doubt is a worthwhile, though depressing film.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
74 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 12, 2014 Friday
Late Edition - Final
Strange Climate Event: Warmth Toward U.S. for Its More Assertive Role
BYLINE: By CORAL DAVENPORT
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 14
LENGTH: 1257 words
LIMA, Peru -- When it comes to global warming, the United States has long been viewed as one of the world's worst actors. American officials have been booed and hissed during international climate talks, bestowed with mock ''Fossil of the Day'' awards for resisting treaties, and widely condemned for demanding that other nations cut their fossil fuel emissions while refusing, year after year, to take action at home.
Suddenly, all that has changed.
At the global climate change negotiations now wrapping up in Peru, American negotiators are being met with something wildly unfamiliar: cheers, applause, thanks and praise.
It is an incongruous moment, arriving at a time when so many aspects of American foreign policy are under fire.
But the enthusiastic reception on climate issues comes a month after a historic announcement by the United States and China, the world's two largest polluters, that they would jointly commit to cut their emissions. Many international negotiators say the deal is the catalyst that could lead to a new global climate change accord that would, for the first time, commit every nation in the world to cutting its own planet-warming emissions.
The American policy that helped prod China -- and change the international perception of the United States -- is one of President Obama's most contentious domestic decisions. His June announcement that he would use his executive authority to push through an aggressive set of regulations on coal-fired power plants in the United States -- the nation's largest source of greenhouse gas pollution -- set off a firestorm of legal, political and legislative opposition at home. Critics have called it a ''war on coal'' that could devastate the American economy.
But in the arena of international climate change negotiations, it has fundamentally transformed the feeling toward his administration.
''The U.S. is now credible on climate change,'' said Laurence Tubiana, the French climate change ambassador to the United Nations, who is leading efforts to broker a new agreement to be signed by world leaders in Paris next year.
Veterans of two decades of climate change negotiations called the turnaround in America's image profound.
''Countries got weary of negotiations with the U.S.; it got tough in negotiations, but it didn't deliver,'' said Yvo de Boer, the former executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. ''Now the U.S. has policies in place to deliver on its word.''
Mr. de Boer praised Secretary of State John Kerry, who worked for months to broker the joint announcement with China and has pushed to translate Mr. Obama's domestic action into commitments for similar action from other countries.
''This is the first time in the history of the climate talks that the U.S. Secretary of State has engaged directly in the climate talks,'' said Mr. de Boer, now director of the Global Green Growth Institute. ''That direct engagement gives a lot of credibility to the U.S. position.''
Mr. Kerry attended the United Nations climate change talks for nearly 20 years as a senator, often as the only representative from Congress. On Thursday, a day before this two-week round of talks was set to conclude, Mr. Kerry arrived here greeted by a cheering crowd.
''Every nation -- I repeat, every nation -- has a responsibility to do its part,'' Mr. Kerry said in a speech intended to spur negotiators. ''If you are a big developed nation and you do not lead, you are part of the problem.
''I'm proud that the U.S. has accepted responsibility,'' he said. ''We're going straight to the largest source of emissions.''
He even cited the most contentious impact of the Obama administration's new rules -- they are expected to shutter hundreds of coal-fired power plants.
''We're going to take a bunch of them out of commission,'' he said.
The day before, White House officials gave a detailed presentation on the new regulations to a standing-room-only crowd of international delegates and journalists. Janet McCabe, the senior Environmental Protection Agency official charged with drafting the regulations, appeared at the presentation on a video link, laying out in exhaustive detail how the new rules would work, at the federal and state levels.
Negotiators and delegates from dozens of countries have peppered the Americans with questions about the new rules -- from the technical details to their legal status, given that Mr. Obama has enacted the policy without new action from Congress. While that strategy has enraged Republicans and others in the United States, it has drawn praise from the other governments here.
''The U.S. has shown, not only because of the announcement with China, but also the June 2 rule, the political will to move this process, even with the difficulty between the executive branch and Congress,'' said Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, the Peruvian environment minister, who is presiding over the Lima summit.
In Washington, Mr. Obama's opponents are preparing a full-on assault of the regulation. Leading the charge is Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, the incoming Senate majority leader. For Mr. McConnell, whose home state is a major coal producer and relies on coal-fired power plants for more than 90 percent of its electricity, the fight against Mr. Obama's climate change rules is personal.
''This unrealistic plan, that the president would dump on his successor, would ensure higher utility rates and far fewer jobs,'' Mr. McConnell said in an emailed statement. ''It's time for more listening, and less job-destroying red tape. Easing the burden already created by E.P.A. regulations will continue to be a priority for me in the new Congress.''
For now, despite the new Republican majority in the Senate, it appears unlikely that Mr. McConnell will be able to summon the votes necessary to repeal Mr. Obama's rules -- a point that American negotiators are making repeatedly here.
Still, some skepticism remains. During his first year in office, President Obama promised world leaders at a United Nations summit in Copenhagen that he would soon sign a sweeping new law to fight climate change. But that bill failed in Congress, and the United States went back to being viewed as the world's largest economy and largest historic greenhouse gas polluter, refusing to change course. Mr. Obama was seen as well intentioned, but lacking credibility because of his failure to push through climate action at home.
This time, American officials continue to assure their counterparts that the United States will keep its word.
Even negotiators who praise the new American and China emissions cuts warn that the measures will not come close to preventing the costly early impacts of global warming.
The deal being worked out in Lima is expected to create a framework requiring all nations to put forward plans over the next six months to cut their own emissions. But those plans will be determined by the nations themselves, guided by their own domestic politics, not by the amount of reduction that scientists say is necessary. And they are not scheduled to be enacted until 2020.
Tony deBrum, the foreign minister of the low-lying Marshall Islands, which are at risk of losing land and vital infrastructure to rising seas, praised Mr. Kerry and the lead American climate negotiator, Todd D. Stern, for meeting with him personally.
''They have asked to hear the perspective of a small island nation,'' he said. ''That has given us confidence that they take our voice seriously.
''But what has been announced is not enough,'' he added.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/world/strange-climate-event-warmth-toward-the-us.html
LOAD-DATE: December 12, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Secretary of State John Kerry spoke at the United Nations climate change conference in Lima, Peru, on Thursday. (PHOTOGRAPH BY RODRIGO ABD/ASSOCIATED PRESS)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
75 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 11, 2014 Thursday 9:45 PM GMT
Merchants of Doubt review - strategic cunning of climate-change sceptics;
This depressing documentary finds oil companies repurposing the tactics of big tobacco in attempts to fog public opinion
BYLINE: Peter Bradshaw
SECTION: FILM
LENGTH: 198 words
Star Rating: 3 stars
Robert Kenner addresses a topic last raised, more splenetically, in Craig Rosebraugh's 2012 film Greedy Lying Bastards : the growth industry of climate-change doubt: "denial" doesn't do justice to its strategic cunning and potency. Like Rosebraugh, Kenner tells us that big oil is using the same tactics - and often the same personnel - as big tobacco: set up any number of supposedly independent thinktanks, get plausible professionals on the (mouthwatering) payroll, and just sow the seeds of doubt. You undermine conviction, filibuster government action, fog public opinion, get brazen blowhards to shout loudly on Fox News. And the people best at this are the ageing, neocon attack dogs, veterans of the tobacco wars, who in the evening of their lives find a thrilling new purpose in climate change doubt-production. The subject strangely brings back memories of Robert Stone's 2013 documentary Pandora's Promise, which endorsed the environmental pro-nuclear case and had startling footage of Margaret Thatcher denouncing fossil fuels and man-made climate change because she was in favour of nuclear energy. Merchants of Doubt is a worthwhile, though depressing film.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
76 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 11, 2014 Thursday 8:46 PM GMT
Lima climate talks agree on just one paragraph of deal with 24 hours left;
As crucial UN climate summit in Peru enters final hours, negotiators have made little progress on draft text
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg in Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 744 words
Negotiators working on a deal to fight climate change have agreed on just a single paragraph of text, casting a shadow over the prospects for a strong outcome in Lima.
The talks - scheduled to end at noon local time on Friday after 10 full days - are intended to provide a clear blueprint for a global agreement to find climate change by the end of next year.
But while negotiators descended on Lima in a positive mood, buoyed by recent commitments from the US and China, the talks have fallen into a rut.
"We are going backwards," said Alden Meyer, who monitors the climate negotiations for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Those at the talks still have every expectation that Lima will produce some kind of agreement by Friday evening, or more likely early Saturday morning - but the paralysis is in stark contrast to the upbeat backdrop to the summit's opening.
"I am not really sure that we will see a clear outcome coming here in Lima," said the former Mexican president, Felipe Calderon, who addressed the meeting.
By Thursday morning the text, which had started at a reasonable 6 pages, had ballooned to about 50, with negotiators throwing in their objections to almost every single clause. Just one section, paragraph 34, on countries intensifying engagement in the years up to 2020, has been agreed by negotiators.
In a successful negotiation, observers say that by this point officials would be whittling down to the final text to a manageable size.
"We have seen the laggards throwing in language of all kinds into the negotiating document," said Tony de Brum, the foreign minister of the Marshall Islands.
At this late stage, it was expected the Peruvian hosts will take over from the bureaucrats and take personal charge of the negotiating texts to reach a successful conclusion by Friday or - going by the way events have unfolded in past meetings - somewhere in the pre-dawn hours on Saturday morning.
At contention in the talks are the old dividing line on how rich and poor countries should share responsibility for climate change: should all countries be required to do their bit to cut greenhouse gas emissions or only the industrialised countries?
The US and Europe have argued for years that all countries must do their bit. China, which last month reached an historic agreement with the US to cut carbon pollution, India and other countries are balking at this.
"You have got this weird dynamic where China has stood up with their president and president Obama and committed to putting forward economy wide commitments but their formal negotiating position is that those kinds of commitments shouldn't happen," Meyer said.
There is also deep division about the next critical phase of a move towards a climate deal in Paris: the March 2015 deadline for countries to announce what they will do to cut greenhouse gas emissions after 2020.
Developing countries are pushing the industrialised countries to include commitments to help poor countries deal with climate change. But the US and Europe argue it is impractical to expect commitments over climate finance in such a distant timeline.
An additional sticking point is monitoring of those pledges. China in particular is opposed to an official audit of its pledges. "Essentially China is saying 'we will show you our cards but don't read them'," De Brum said.
The United Nations climate negotiations are by default a messy process. The task of herding 196 countries - rich, poor, oil producers or clean energy pioneers - towards consensus is never easy.
However, negotiators always in the end manage to produce some kind of a deal.
The risk for Lima however is that the deal could be much weaker than needed to curb warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels, the agreed goal of the talks.
"One of the fundamental flaws of the negotiations is the lack of a clear global goal for limiting global warming based on science," said Lidy Nacpil of Jubilee South Asia Pacific from the Philippines.
"The Lima talks are setting us up to risk crashing that physical limit," said Nacpil. " If countries are not required to make legal contributions on finance and technology there will be no justice - and if there's no justice there cannot be a deal."
However, the meeting in Lima started in a buoyant mood, helped in part by pledges of nearly $10bn - including $3bn from the US - to the Green Climate Fund, a mechanism for rich countries to give financial aid to help the world's poorest countries to cope with climate change.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
77 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 11, 2014 Thursday 8:46 PM GMT
Lima climate talks agree on just one paragraph of deal with 24 hours left;
As crucial UN climate summit in Peru enters final hours, negotiators have made little progress on draft text
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg in Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 744 words
Negotiators working on a deal to fight climate change have agreed on just a single paragraph of text, casting a shadow over the prospects for a strong outcome in Lima.
The talks - scheduled to end at noon local time on Friday after 10 full days - are intended to provide a clear blueprint for a global agreement to find climate change by the end of next year.
But while negotiators descended on Lima in a positive mood, buoyed by recent commitments from the US and China, the talks have fallen into a rut.
"We are going backwards," said Alden Meyer, who monitors the climate negotiations for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Those at the talks still have every expectation that Lima will produce some kind of agreement by Friday evening, or more likely early Saturday morning - but the paralysis is in stark contrast to the upbeat backdrop to the summit's opening.
"I am not really sure that we will see a clear outcome coming here in Lima," said the former Mexican president, Felipe Calderon, who addressed the meeting.
By Thursday morning the text, which had started at a reasonable 6 pages, had ballooned to about 50, with negotiators throwing in their objections to almost every single clause. Just one section, paragraph 34, on countries intensifying engagement in the years up to 2020, has been agreed by negotiators.
In a successful negotiation, observers say that by this point officials would be whittling down to the final text to a manageable size.
"We have seen the laggards throwing in language of all kinds into the negotiating document," said Tony de Brum, the foreign minister of the Marshall Islands.
At this late stage, it was expected the Peruvian hosts will take over from the bureaucrats and take personal charge of the negotiating texts to reach a successful conclusion by Friday or - going by the way events have unfolded in past meetings - somewhere in the pre-dawn hours on Saturday morning.
At contention in the talks are the old dividing line on how rich and poor countries should share responsibility for climate change: should all countries be required to do their bit to cut greenhouse gas emissions or only the industrialised countries?
The US and Europe have argued for years that all countries must do their bit. China, which last month reached an historic agreement with the US to cut carbon pollution, India and other countries are balking at this.
"You have got this weird dynamic where China has stood up with their president and president Obama and committed to putting forward economy wide commitments but their formal negotiating position is that those kinds of commitments shouldn't happen," Meyer said.
There is also deep division about the next critical phase of a move towards a climate deal in Paris: the March 2015 deadline for countries to announce what they will do to cut greenhouse gas emissions after 2020.
Developing countries are pushing the industrialised countries to include commitments to help poor countries deal with climate change. But the US and Europe argue it is impractical to expect commitments over climate finance in such a distant timeline.
An additional sticking point is monitoring of those pledges. China in particular is opposed to an official audit of its pledges. "Essentially China is saying 'we will show you our cards but don't read them'," De Brum said.
The United Nations climate negotiations are by default a messy process. The task of herding 196 countries - rich, poor, oil producers or clean energy pioneers - towards consensus is never easy.
However, negotiators always in the end manage to produce some kind of a deal.
The risk for Lima however is that the deal could be much weaker than needed to curb warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels, the agreed goal of the talks.
"One of the fundamental flaws of the negotiations is the lack of a clear global goal for limiting global warming based on science," said Lidy Nacpil of Jubilee South Asia Pacific from the Philippines.
"The Lima talks are setting us up to risk crashing that physical limit," said Nacpil. " If countries are not required to make legal contributions on finance and technology there will be no justice - and if there's no justice there cannot be a deal."
However, the meeting in Lima started in a buoyant mood, helped in part by pledges of nearly $10bn - including $3bn from the US - to the Green Climate Fund, a mechanism for rich countries to give financial aid to help the world's poorest countries to cope with climate change.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
78 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 11, 2014 Thursday 7:14 PM GMT
Lima climate talks agree on just one paragraph of deal with 24 hours left;
As crucial UN climate summit in Peru enters final hours, negotiators have made little progress on draft text
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg in Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 744 words
Negotiators working on a deal to fight climate change have agree on just a single paragraph of text, casting a shadow over the prospects for a strong outcome in Lima.
The talks - scheduled to end at noon local time on Friday after 10 full days - are intended to provide a clear blueprint for a global agreement to find climate change by the end of next year.
But while negotiators descended on Lima in a positive mood, buoyed by recent commitments from the US and China, the talks have fallen into a rut.
"We are going backwards," said Alden Meyer, who monitors the climate negotiations for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Those at the talks still have every expectation that Lima will produce some kind of agreement by Friday evening, or more likely early Saturday morning - but the paralysis is in stark contrast to the upbeat backdrop to the summit's opening.
"I am not really sure that we will see a clear outcome coming here in Lima," said the former Mexican president, Felipe Calderon, who addressed the meeting.
By Thursday morning the text, which had started at a reasonable 6 pages, had ballooned to about 50, with negotiators throwing in their objections to almost every single clause. Just one section, paragraph 34, on countries intensifying engagement in the years up to 2020, has been agreed by negotiators.
In a successful negotiation, observers say that by this point officials would be whittling down to the final text to a manageable size.
"We have seen the laggards throwing in language of all kinds into the negotiating document," said Tony de Brum, the foreign minister of the Marshall Islands.
At this late stage, it was expected the Peruvian hosts will take over from the bureaucrats and take personal charge of the negotiating texts to reach a successful conclusion by Friday or - going by the way events have unfolded in past meetings - somewhere in the pre-dawn hours on Saturday morning.
At contention in the talks are the old dividing line on how rich and poor countries should share responsibility for climate change: should all countries be required to do their bit to cut greenhouse gas emissions or only the industrialised countries?
The US and Europe have argued for years that all countries must do their bit. China, which last month reached an historic agreement with the US to cut carbon pollution, India and other countries are balking at this.
"You have got this weird dynamic where China has stood up with their president and president Obama and committed to putting forward economy wide commitments but their formal negotiating position is that those kinds of commitments shouldn't happen," Meyer said.
There is also deep division about the next critical phase of a move towards a climate deal in Paris: the March 2015 deadline for countries to announce what they will do to cut greenhouse gas emissions after 2020.
Developing countries are pushing the industrialised countries to include commitments to help poor countries deal with climate change. But the US and Europe argue it is impractical to expect commitments over climate finance in such a distant timeline.
An additional sticking point is monitoring of those pledges. China in particular is opposed to an official audit of its pledges. "Essentially China is saying 'we will show you our cards but don't read them'," De Brum said.
The United Nations climate negotiations are by default a messy process. The task of herding 196 countries - rich, poor, oil producers or clean energy pioneers - towards consensus is never easy.
However, negotiators always in the end manage to produce some kind of a deal.
The risk for Lima however is that the deal could be much weaker than needed to curb warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels, the agreed goal of the talks.
"One of the fundamental flaws of the negotiations is the lack of a clear global goal for limiting global warming based on science," said Lidy Nacpil of Jubilee South Asia Pacific from the Philippines.
"The Lima talks are setting us up to risk crashing that physical limit," said Nacpil. " If countries are not required to make legal contributions on finance and technology there will be no justice - and if there's no justice there cannot be a deal."
However, the meeting in Lima started in a buoyant mood, helped in part by pledges of nearly $10bn - including $3bn from the US - to the Green Climate Fund, a mechanism for rich countries to give financial aid to help the world's poorest countries to cope with climate change.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
79 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 11, 2014 Thursday 5:34 PM GMT
International law stays silent on the responsibility for climate change;
Climate change affects everything from public health to migration patterns. So why has the legal response to a global problem been so weak?
BYLINE: Stephen Humphreys
LENGTH: 1168 words
Climate change hurts innocent people. It puts ordinary people, who for the most part have not contributed in any way to global warming, at extraordinary risk.
The IPPC's Climate Change 2014 Synthesis report makes for sobering reading when they write about the consequences of climate change: "injury and death due to more intense heat waves and fires"; floods and droughts, and a rise in "foodborne and waterborne diseases".
This risk is not just a matter of extreme weather events, such as the heatwave in Russia that took an estimated 55,000 lives in 2010 or last year's typhoon Haiyan, recording the fastest wind speeds on record. It is also the intensifying effect climate change has on other intractable global problems such as war, famine, and economic migration. Repeated hot summers contributed to a spike in droughts across Syria, for example, triggering hardship and riots that culminated in the vicious civil war now underway.
In 1992 the nations of the world entered a binding agreement to stop "dangerous anthropogenic interference" with the earth's atmosphere. In the two decades since, that obligation has failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; quite the contrary, as levels have since soared to rates unthinkable in 1992. The United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC), as the 1992 agreement is known, has sent a yearly caravan of politicians, activists and lawyers to some of the world's finest resorts to thrash out a binding agreement - but so far with little effect. (Hopes are still pinned on finding common ground at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris next year).
Elsewhere, the law has had nothing to say on this important issue. The global economy is underpinned by law, but you would think it had nothing to do with climate change. Climate-related cases have been absent from international courts - even from disputes involving human rights, investment or the environment. While there have been cases heard in some national courts, particularly in the US, they do not progress far.
The weak legal response to climate change means that big polluters are getting off lightly. It is clear that 60% of proven oil reserves must be left in the ground if we are to have even a remote chance of limiting global warming to two degrees. Yet oil companies and exporters continue to drill and explore, to enjoy their assets and hedge against future losses, as though climate change were a mere financial risk rather than an existential threat to peoples' lives and livelihoods.
The world of international law is behaving as though the problem of climate change does not exist.
Investment law
A significant case was decided recently by a panel of international arbitrators in The Hague. Yukos versus Russia involved the compensation of three named shareholders in Mikhail Khodorkhovsky's former oil company, Yukos, which was driven to bankruptcy - allegedly by Russian tax policy. The case is noteworthy as it involves probably the largest arbitration award in history, at $50bn (£31.8bn).
The case is a reminder of just how much power a three-person international panel can wield over national tax policy, allowing them to take vast quantities of money from Russian taxpayers and put it into the hands of private shareholders. It is also notable for the methods by which the panel arrived at this extraordinary sum. The number represents a portion of the money the shareholders were held to have lost through sales of oil that would have been extracted between 2004 and 2011, had Yukos not been bankrupted first.
In other words, the panel ruled that between 2004 and 2011, with greenhouse gas emissions rising at record rates worldwide, those who had played a part in environmental destruction (and profited from it) should nevertheless be compensated to the tune for not having been free to produce more greenhouse gasses.
Put like this the ruling seems bizarre, but as any lawyer will tell you the panel was only ruling on the issues as presented. Both Yukos and Russia recommended the panel follow the indexed market price for oil and gas in Russia over the period, which generally rose. The overwhelming public interest in stemming climate change was absent from the proceedings and from the court's calculations. The human, social, environmental costs were irrelevant or, as economists like to say, "externalised".
International trade law
Unfortunately, the same problem also afflicts other areas of international law. One obvious policy for any state serious about addressing climate change would be to impose low carbon standards on the production of ordinary everyday goods such as meat, mobile phones, and plastics. But if you impose standards on goods at home, you must also impose them on imports or domestic industry will become uncompetitive and suffer.
Does international trade law allow states to impose low-carbon standards on imported goods? The answer is yes and no. A low or zero-carbon import policy is almost certain to violate World Trade Organization (WTO) law, but there are some exceptions. Being granted an exception is time consuming and expensive, and there is a significant risk the WTO's principal court will shut down any such a policy, regardless. No country has yet tried.
Why has the WTO not taken more proactive steps to tackle climate change? And why has the estimated $600bn (£382bn) in annual subsidies to fossil fuels never been challenged, while paltry subsidies to support renewable energy technologies have been stopped?
Human rights law
Given the self-evident harms inflicted by climate change on internationally protected human rights to health, food, water, shelter and to life itself, one might expect human rights law to provide a viable route to mount a challenge. But this has proved complicated. Many of the principal victims of climate change do not live in the countries where emissions are highest, a key feature of climate injustice. This makes it difficult or impossible to sue.
Where people directly affected by the changing climate already live in high-emitting countries such the US, Canada, Australia or the European nations, human rights may yet provide some effective relief. Litigation is beginning to happen in some of these places, but there are still significant hurdles.
Regards harm to the climate, courts are faced with lengthy and complicated causal chains that appear at first sight quite unlike the existing case law. Courts need imagination in these cases, but so far they have rarely displayed it.
More articles like this:
Philanthropreneurship: welcome to the new age of philanthropy
An economic system that supports people and planet is still possible
Society must call business' bluff on its fixation with profit maximisation
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
80 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 11, 2014 Thursday 5:00 PM GMT
International law stays silent on the responsibility for climate change;
Climate change affects everything from public health to migration patterns. So why has the legal response to a global problem been so weak?
BYLINE: Stephen Humphreys
LENGTH: 1168 words
Climate change hurts innocent people. It puts ordinary people, who for the most part have not contributed in any way to global warming, at extraordinary risk.
The IPPC's Climate Change 2014 Synthesis report makes for sobering reading when they write about the consequences of climate change: "injury and death due to more intense heat waves and fires"; floods and droughts, and a rise in "foodborne and waterborne diseases".
This risk is not just a matter of extreme weather events, such as the heatwave in Russia that took an estimated 55,000 lives in 2010 or last year's typhoon Haiyan, recording the fastest wind speeds on record. It is also the intensifying effect climate change has on other intractable global problems such as war, famine, and economic migration. Repeated hot summers contributed to a spike in droughts across Syria, for example, triggering hardship and riots that culminated in the vicious civil war now underway.
In 1992 the nations of the world entered a binding agreement to stop "dangerous anthropogenic interference" with the earth's atmosphere. In the two decades since, that obligation has failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; quite the contrary, as levels have since soared to rates unthinkable in 1992. The United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC), as the 1992 agreement is known, has sent a yearly caravan of politicians, activists and lawyers to some of the world's finest resorts to thrash out a binding agreement - but so far with little effect. (Hopes are still pinned on finding common ground at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris next year).
Elsewhere, the law has had nothing to say on this important issue. The global economy is underpinned by law, but you would think it had nothing to do with climate change. Climate-related cases have been absent from international courts - even from disputes involving human rights, investment or the environment. While there have been cases heard in some national courts, particularly in the US, they do not progress far.
The weak legal response to climate change means that big polluters are getting off lightly. It is clear that 60% of proven oil reserves must be left in the ground if we are to have even a remote chance of limiting global warming to two degrees. Yet oil companies and exporters continue to drill and explore, to enjoy their assets and hedge against future losses, as though climate change were a mere financial risk rather than an existential threat to peoples' lives and livelihoods.
The world of international law is behaving as though the problem of climate change does not exist.
Investment law
A significant case was decided recently by a panel of international arbitrators in The Hague. Yukos versus Russia involved the compensation of three named shareholders in Mikhail Khodorkhovsky's former oil company, Yukos, which was driven to bankruptcy - allegedly by Russian tax policy. The case is noteworthy as it involves probably the largest arbitration award in history, at $50bn (£31.8bn).
The case is a reminder of just how much power a three-person international panel can wield over national tax policy, allowing them to take vast quantities of money from Russian taxpayers and put it into the hands of private shareholders. It is also notable for the methods by which the panel arrived at this extraordinary sum. The number represents a portion of the money the shareholders were held to have lost through sales of oil that would have been extracted between 2004 and 2011, had Yukos not been bankrupted first.
In other words, the panel ruled that between 2004 and 2011, with greenhouse gas emissions rising at record rates worldwide, those who had played a part in environmental destruction (and profited from it) should nevertheless be compensated to the tune for not having been free to produce more greenhouse gasses.
Put like this the ruling seems bizarre, but as any lawyer will tell you the panel was only ruling on the issues as presented. Both Yukos and Russia recommended the panel follow the indexed market price for oil and gas in Russia over the period, which generally rose. The overwhelming public interest in stemming climate change was absent from the proceedings and from the court's calculations. The human, social, environmental costs were irrelevant or, as economists like to say, "externalised".
International trade law
Unfortunately, the same problem also afflicts other areas of international law. One obvious policy for any state serious about addressing climate change would be to impose low carbon standards on the production of ordinary everyday goods such as meat, mobile phones, and plastics. But if you impose standards on goods at home, you must also impose them on imports or domestic industry will become uncompetitive and suffer.
Does international trade law allow states to impose low-carbon standards on imported goods? The answer is yes and no. A low or zero-carbon import policy is almost certain to violate World Trade Organization (WTO) law, but there are some exceptions. Being granted an exception is time consuming and expensive, and there is a significant risk the WTO's principal court will shut down any such a policy, regardless. No country has yet tried.
Why has the WTO not taken more proactive steps to tackle climate change? And why has the estimated $600bn (£382bn) in annual subsidies to fossil fuels never been challenged, while paltry subsidies to support renewable energy technologies have been stopped?
Human rights law
Given the self-evident harms inflicted by climate change on internationally protected human rights to health, food, water, shelter and to life itself, one might expect human rights law to provide a viable route to mount a challenge. But this has proved complicated. Many of the principal victims of climate change do not live in the countries where emissions are highest, a key feature of climate injustice. This makes it difficult or impossible to sue.
Where people directly affected by the changing climate already live in high-emitting countries such the US, Canada, Australia or the European nations, human rights may yet provide some effective relief. Litigation is beginning to happen in some of these places, but there are still significant hurdles.
Regards harm to the climate, courts are faced with lengthy and complicated causal chains that appear at first sight quite unlike the existing case law. Courts need imagination in these cases, but so far they have rarely displayed it.
More articles like this:
Philanthropreneurship: welcome to the new age of philanthropy
An economic system that supports people and planet is still possible
Society must call business' bluff on its fixation with profit maximisation
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
81 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 11, 2014 Thursday 12:15 PM GMT
Food loss is the blindspot in our fight against hunger;
64% of food is lost before it gets to market despite the fact that technological solutions are available. This is both tragic and unnecessary
BYLINE: Salif Romano Niang in Bamako
SECTION: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS NETWORK
LENGTH: 938 words
In November the World Bank launched a report that detailed the catastrophic effects on agricultural productivity of the " new climate normal ": crop failures brought about by climate change are likely to bring about hunger on a massive scale appears, the report's authors warn. President of the bank, Jim Yong King, called on leaders to "embrace carbon pricing and green policies." But I think there is a more immediate way to prevent food insecurity and rid the world of hunger: tackle food loss.
This should be at the very top of the global food agenda because slashing the number of calories and nutrients that go unconsumed would have clear benefits - for farmers and for hungry people around the world.
The global food system already produces enough food for everyone. But 24% of all calories destined for human consumption never end up in tummies, according to the World Resources Institute. In the developing world 64% of food is lost before it is processed or transported to markets. In sub-Saharan Africa alone this costs farms $4bn a year. In a world where 800 million people are undernourished this is both tragic and unnecessary.
Rich countries waste food, while poor countries lose it. In Africa politics, policies, and climate change all affect food production and availability, where periodic droughts and political upheavals have left millions hungry. These are long-term problems that will require long-term solutions. But there are concrete steps we can take right now to bolster Africa's food security, starting with proven technological interventions.
Basic solar-powered processing equipment can be transformative. Every day in markets across Africa fruits wilt and rots under the blazing sun. That same sun can power a cold room or a mango juice plant owned and staffed vendors.
At Malo, a social enterprise founded to mill, fortify and market rice cultivated by local smallholder farmers in Mali, we are looking at proposals to use solar energy to power equipment which could reduce food loss. Elsewhere in Mali, cattle farmers are using solar energy to power refrigerators to store their milk.
Given that the biggest food losses occur on farms, this is where we should begin to solve the problem. For subsistence farmers, support and advice from farmer education services and farming cooperatives improves their ability to withstand economic and climate shocks and maximize their potential.
New and existing cooperatives need to make modern harvesting tools and robust crop disease and pest management systems standard offerings for their members. These improvements would bolster traditional benefits of cooperatives, such as reducing input costs, increasing market access, and obtaining more favorable credit terms.
For commercial farms, regardless of size, putting trained and motivated employees on the team is essential. However, finding qualified workers is a challenge that needs to be overcome.
Creating schools and incubators with curricula and programmes that educate farm workers, farm managers, and farm owners can both address the challenge of ensuring universal education while providing career opportunities for young people. A better educated farm workforce would be better able to prevent or mitigate food loss whether it is by identifying crop diseases early and knowing how to treat them or planning and executing appropriate logistics and distribution operations.
To be sure, tackling the issue of food loss is costly, complex and requires more than just training farm workers and leveraging solar energy. With a growing middle class in Africa, it is essential that the food saved by modernising supply chains doesn't end up in being thrown away by businesses and consumers, whose consumption habits often mimic those of the developed world.
As soon as that begins to happen we must work to reduce grocery and household food waste. We should investigate the potential of Fenugreen's Fresh Paper, a spice-infused paper said to increase the shelf life of produce.
Taken together, small improvements at farms and in the kitchen can achieve real results and cut food waste and food loss across the developing world.
Increasing yields and bringing more land under cultivation will remain important to feeding a growing population. But ensuring we eat everything we already grow could quickly reduce the burden we place on our planet as we figure out longer term strategies for coping with climate change and other food security threats.
As 2015 approaches and world leaders begin to think about how to implement the sustainable development goals on hunger, they could do much worse than adopt this mantra: to feed the world tomorrow, let's eat what we grow today.
Salif Romano Niang is co-founder of Malo, and a member of the Aspen Institute Food Security Strategy group. Follow @salifrniang on Twitter
Food for Thought is a monthly series curating ideas on achieving the goal of zero hunger from leaders across the private, public and charity sectors. Coming in January: Biraj Patnaik
Read more stories like this:
Six innovations revolutionising farming
Pushing food security up the development agenda
New ideas put agriculture co-operatives at the heart of rural development
Advertisement feature: Hunger falls, but 805 million still chronically undernourished
Join our community of development professionals and humanitarians. Follow @GuardianGDP on Twitter.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
82 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 11, 2014 Thursday 7:45 AM GMT
John Kerry: climate change is now a security issue;
US secretary of state will call on leaders at Lima talks to reach for an ambitious deal to fight climate change
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg in Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 345 words
John Kerry, the US secretary of state, will call on leaders to reach for an ambitious deal to fight climate change in a visit to UN negotiations on Thursday.
The appearance of a high-profile official such as Kerry at a critical stage of the talks will send a powerful signal of Barack Obama's continued commitment to climate action, US officials say.
Kerry will not be making any new announcements and US officials say they don't foresee him jumping in to take a hands-on role in the talks.
"I do not actually expect Senator Kerry to get involved in the negotiations," said Todd Stern, the State Department climate change envoy.
But the officials said Kerry's decision to speak to the meeting would help keep up the momentum around the talks. "I think this is going to demonstrate to the world yet again the US commitment to addressing climate change," the official said.
In his speech on Thursday, Kerry is expected to tell leaders that America now sees climate change as a security issue and highlight the measures Obama has taken so far on climate change.
'Exhibit A' in that argument will be the deal brokered last month between the US and China - the world's two biggest polluters - to cut carbon pollution. Kerry may also mention America's $3bn (£1.9bn) contribution to the fund set up to help poorer countries deal with climate change.
Kerry, a climate champion since his days in the Senate, adopted climate change and ocean conservation as his key priorities since becoming secretary of state.
A few years ago it would have been unthinkable to suggest a visit by a US secretary of state would boost the prospects for UN climate talks. But Ed Davey, the energy and climate change secretary, said the atmospherics had changed.
"John Kerry's leadership, along with that of President Obama, I think has been critical in getting the world to the point where we are at," said Davey. "The US, China and others have been a brake on progress in climate change talks. Now when we see America working with the European Union and others to try to get successful climate change talks."
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
83 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 11, 2014 Thursday 4:49 AM GMT
Disclose climate risk in fossil fuel investments, says UK minister;
Ed Davey boosts argument that companies' coal, oil and gas holdings will lose value as world moves to cut carbon emissions
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg in Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 414 words
Britain's energy and climate change secretary, Ed Davey, has said companies should be required to disclose their investments in fossil fuels, bringing firmly into the mainstream the idea that climate risk will affect the value of such holdings.
The minister's call for changes in the financial rules came on the sidelines of UN negotiations in Lima where leaders are working to draft a deal on fight climate change. Davey said it was time to recognise that as economies moved away from fossil fuels as part of that deal, coal, oil and gas were no longer presumed to be a safe financial bet.
"We are seeing a move from carbon capitalism to climate capitalism," he said. "We know with climate change we have got to move out to a low-carbon agenda and we are already seeing the signs that the market is going to be helping to drive this," he said.
Companies - including big pension funds - had an obligation to tell investors about the risks in the long-term value of fossil fuel holdings, Davey argued.
Campaigners and green business groups have for some years promoted the idea of "stranded assets" - fossil fuels that will never be burned because of regulations cutting carbon emissions - to try to make the business case for climate action.
Davey said investors deserved to know whether their holdings were at risk.
"I think we need to look again at rules of disclosure for big companies who have large investments in fossil fuels," Davey said. "I think there is a case for making that mandatory is what I am saying."
Acknowledging those risks would lead to changes in regulations governing banking, the stock exchange and other financial institutions, he said.
Davey released a letter he wrote to Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, earlier on Wednesday on managing such changes.
Campaigners and green business groups have long been urging companies to disclose their fossil fuel holdings to investors but with very limited success.
The divestment and disclosure campaigns got an important boost in September when the heirs to the fabled Rockefeller oil fortune announced they were pulling out of all of their fossil fuel holdings in their US$862m portfolio.
Alison Doig, senior climate adviser for ChristianAid, said Davey's support for mandatory disclosure was critical to bringing the idea into the mainstream. "Even a year ago there was no holding a discussion around risks to these assets," she said. "It really is moving into a mainstream decision rather than a coffee."
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
84 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 11, 2014 Thursday 1:03 AM GMT
Julie Bishop's speech to Lima climate talks - annotated;
Looking through the spin of the Australian foreign minister's speech to the Lima climate talks
BYLINE: Graham Readfearn in Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1199 words
Australia's foreign minister, Julie Bishop, has just delivered a speech to the United Nations climate talks here in Lima.
On a day when more than 10,000 people took to the city's streets calling for rapid cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, Bishop moved to defend Australia's reputation as a "good international citizen" on climate change.
So here's some excerpts from Bishop's speech, annotated by me. Call it a service. Let's dive in.
Australia has a strong track record of playing a constructive role in the global response to global climate change.
Like that time in Kyoto in 1997 when Australia managed to slip out with a target that allowed us to actually increase our emissions while, at the same time, securing a clause that would mean we would need to do almost nothing to meet it?
We take on commitments and we deliver against them. We don't take lightly our commitments. Climate change is a challenge to us all with serious environmental, social and economic consequences.
Do these "commitments" include the massive expansion of coal and gas export projects that make Australia a world leader in fossil fuel exports? Because after all, our prime minister thinks "coal is good for humanity". Good job these "serious environmental" consequences from climate change don't, in the eyes of the foreign minister, include the Great Barrier Reef (even though her own scientists say it does ).
Individually and collectively we must deliberate carefully and determine the best course of action to reduce emissions. This action must deliver real cuts in emissions and not put countries at a competitive disadvantage and it must work alongside countries plans for strong economic growth, jobs and development.
Just before Julie Bishop rose to speak, we heard from Leonard Balogun Koroma, the designated minister from the government of Sierra Leone. He said climate change was undermining development in Africa and getting in the way of efforts to overcome poverty. "The time to act is now," he said. "Our survival depends on it."
If "not surviving" could be considered a "competitive disadvantage" then Minister Bishop might be onto something.
Australia joined the first commitment period of the Kyoto protocol and we took on a legally binding target - we met it, indeed exceeded it.
Indeed we did exceed it. Our initial target was 108% - we got down to 103%. It was just so easy, thanks to the Australia clause.
Australia has an ambitious 2020 target. We will reduce emissions by five per cent based on 2000 levels by 2020. This is a significant cut - minus 19% from business as usual. Our target is comparable to those taken by other developed countries.
Yes. Our target is so "ambitious" that the government's own Climate Change Authority says it is " not credible " and should be trebled. No wonder the government wants to axe that.
At home we have put in place policies to ensure that we deliver on our international targets. In 2001 Australia set the world's first Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. This was expanded and extended in 2009. It means we will generate at least 20% of our electricity from renewables in 2020.
Oh my! This from the government that appointed a climate science sceptic to review the target, has been thinking about scrapping it and is currently trying to negotiate to cut it. This is a move the renewable energy industry says will cost thousands of jobs.
Investment in large-scale renewables in Australia has already come to a standstill. This will please our treasurer, Joe Hockey, who thinks windfarms are " appalling ".
We are taking further direct action. At the heart of our direct action policy is a $2.55 billion emissions reduction fund. This fund will create opportunities and incentives for Australian business to take practical climate action. It will deliver real and measurable results for the environment while improving business competitiveness.
Here's what else it will do. Most analysts think this new policy will fall a long way short of Australia's "ambitious" target to cut emissions. The $2.55 billion fund is paid for by the taxpayer and is what came after Australia became the first country in the world to scrap carbon pricing laws - a victory for ideologues and the fossil fuel industry. This replaced "polluter pays" with "taxpaper pays".
It is a comprehensive approach to climate change that benefits the environment and the community. Looking to the future, Australia will work to secure an agreement in Paris that is strong, effective and ensures countries live up to their commitments.
This "comprehensive approach" is an entirely voluntary scheme and few people beyond the offices of the cabinet ministers think it is in any way scalable if any increase in future ambition did materialise. In other words, if Australia did take the advice of its own Climate Change Authority, it would need another policy.
At the climate finance ministerial meeting yesterday, I announced Australia's contribution of $200m over four years to the Green Climate Fund.
And what a surprise that was, especially after Tony Abbott had said he would never contribute to a scheme like that because it was... what was the quote again ... oh yes, "socialism masquerading as environmentalism". By the way, we just stripped that $200m right out of our foreign aid budget.
Allow me to focus for a moment on research and development of new technologies.
Sure, but given my suggestion before the Lima climate talks that Australia might be defending coal while it's here, I bet you that focus isn't on clean energy.
Australia has a long history of driving and supporting innovative and smart climate change solutions both in Australia and other countries. Carbon Capture and Storage is a concrete example of where we have committed over $300m to low emissions coal technology research and development. The Gorgon LNG facility in my home state of Western Australia is one of the world's largest natural gas projects and the single largest resource development in Australia's history. It is using best practice in emissions management including capture and storage.
Told you. While we're talking about "supporting" CCS, is this when we mention that the government actually cut $459m from the budget of the Carbon Capture and Storage Program in the previous budget? Yes, let's mention that.
As solar industry leader Jeremy Leggett told an earlier press conference in Lima today: "The oil and gas industry has been deploying the prospects of [CCS] as a smokescreen, knowing it will never get to industrial scale, just to buy time."
I should also ponder if "supporting smart solutions" means also cutting millions from the budget of the government science agency tasked with innovating? An estimated one in five jobs are to go as a result.
These examples highlight the good story Australia has to tell on climate change We are taking action, we are delivering on our commitments and we are more than playing our part. This is what Australia does. That's who we are. A reliable partner. A good international citizen.
We are such a good citizen on this climate change business, that we are currently ranked last of all industrialised countries for our performance on climate change.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
85 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 11, 2014 Thursday
The New York Times on the Web
Norway's Pension Fund Is Advised to Keep Fossil Fuel Shares
BYLINE: By STANLEY REED
SECTION: Section ; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; GREEN COLUMN; Pg.
LENGTH: 948 words
LONDON -- If the decision had been different, it might have made a dramatic headline: ''Norway to sell out of oil companies.'' Instead, a panel of experts advising Norway's Finance Ministry recommended last week that the giant sovereign wealth fund that invests the country's petroleum wealth remain an active investor in oil and coal companies.
The six-person group was set up by the government this year in response to pressure from opposition parties for the fund to divest its holdings in companies that extract coal. Of all the fossil fuels, coal produces the highest emissions of greenhouse gases, which contribute to climate change. Environmental groups have been urging curbs on coal and tar sands as initial steps to a broad exit from all fossil fuels.
A recommendation from the panel that the fund get rid of its fossil fuel shares would have added momentum to global efforts, led by groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council in the United States, to persuade university endowments and other organizations to sell these stocks.
''We were quite disappointed at the conclusion from the panel,'' said Lars Haltbrekken, chairman of the Norway branch of Friends of the Earth, an environmental advocacy group. ''We think that if Norway and the pension fund withdrew from the fossil fuel industry or the coal industry, it will be a very strong signal to the market.''
The panel, consisting mostly of academics, took a more cautious approach, arguing that fossil fuels were likely to be an important part of the global economy for decades. The fund could accomplish more, the panel said, by demanding greener practices at oil companies like Royal Dutch Shell and Total -- both among its top 10 equity holdings as of the end of September -- than by jettisoning them from its portfolio.
The fund, called the Government Pension Fund Global, says that on average, it owns about 1.3 percent of all listed companies globally and about 2.5 percent of those on European exchanges.
''For a fund as large as Norway's, it is inappropriate to exit from fossil-fuel stocks,'' Elroy Dimson, a panel member and an emeritus professor of finance at the London Business School, wrote in an email. ''With Norway's muscle, there is more to be gained by engaging with companies, regulators and governments.''
The panel's skepticism may be a sign that persuading investors to sell out of fossil fuel companies faces greater complexity than similar efforts like promoting divestment from cigarette makers. Consuming tobacco ''by and large has only harmful consequences,'' the panel wrote, but even the burning of coal ''provides economic and social benefits.''
The panel also said that climate change was a complex issue, with no easily identifiable culprit that the fund can ban, unlike some activities like nuclear weapons production.
When it comes to assigning blame for climate change, ''the villain is our present society,'' the panel wrote. ''Taking part in the global economic system also means contributing to climate change.''
The divestment movement has made high-profile converts of late, including the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a philanthropic group of the Rockefeller family, which said in September that it would sharply reduce its investments in coal and tar sands and also work to cut other exposure to fossil fuels over the next few years.
Like the Rockefeller family, the Norwegian fund's wealth is based on oil. The fund receives a portion of Norway's petroleum revenues each year, which it invests with the goal of building up a fortune for future generations after the oil runs out.
Over the years, it has amassed what is considered the largest sovereign wealth fund, with about $860 billion under management, ranking ahead of the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority and Saudi Arabia's central bank, according to estimates published by the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute, a research organization.
The debate over divesting fossil fuels in Norway is likely to continue. Mr. Haltbrekken of Friends of the Earth said that the opposition parties were likely to eventually force a parliamentary vote on coal, adding to the pressure on the minority center-right government.
Christine Meisingset, head of sustainability at Storebrand, a large Norwegian asset manager, said that there was also a strong argument for the fund to diversify its portfolio by moving away from fossil fuel shares. With so much of Norway's cash coming from fossil fuels, the logic goes, there is little reason for it to use that money to invest in oil companies.
The fund is managed by a wing of the central bank and strives to be a hard-nosed, professional investor. But as an enormously wealthy institution in a country of only about five million people, it also comes under pressure to achieve ethical and political goals.
To accommodate these pressures, the government has set up a council on ethics that can recommend bans on investments in companies falling under several criteria, including violating human rights and producing tobacco.
Over the years, the Finance Ministry has barred investments in a substantial list of companies, like Lockheed Martin, for its involvement with nuclear weapons, and Walmart Stores, for ''the risk of complicity'' in human rights violations like child labor.
The expert committee recommended that a new category called ''contribution to climate change'' be added to the list of criteria for banned investments. In the past, some mining companies, including Rio Tinto and Barrick Gold, have been banned because they were believed to have caused environmental damage. But identifying companies for disinvestment is a slow process.
It is not going to be easy to purge Norway's fund of fossil fuels.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/11/business/norways-pension-fund-is-advised-to-keep-fossil-fuel-shares.html
LOAD-DATE: December 11, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
86 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 10, 2014 Wednesday 7:32 PM GMT
Thousands of marchers demand just solution at UN climate talks in Lima;
Indigenous peoples from the Andes to the Amazon joined trade unionists, students and women's groups in demonstration in the Peruvian capital
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg in Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 683 words
From the Amazon to the Andes, thousands of activists marched through the streets of Lima on Wednesday to demand a just solution to climate change.
The march through the traffic-choked streets put a human face on the United Nations climate negotiations, a process largely confined to suited bureaucrats working behind the high walls of a military compound in a leafy neighbourhood of Lima.
Campaigners said the message behind the march was not just to press for action to fight climate change - but for fairness, as well as protection for environmental activists who face daily harassment from powerful corporate interests.
"This is no longer an issue for governments and corporations to talk about behind locked doors," said Oxfam International's executive director, Winnie Byanyima. "People want solutions, and they also want those solutions to include their basic rights."
Organisers said they hoped to get 10,000 or more out into the streets - which would make this the biggest climate march Latin America has ever seen.
By mid-morning, with dozens of riot police in helmets and plastic shields looking on, the crowds descending on Campo de Marte grew several thousand strong.
The marchers included peasant women from the Andes in bowler hats decked with flowers and full skirts, indigenous peoples from the Amazon carrying photos of murdered environmental activists, drummers, stilt walkers, trade unionists, students, and women's groups.
Protesters carried banners declaring: "Keep the oil in the soil", "Protect your food" and "Change the system, not the climate".
The marchers - who came from Ecuador, Bolivia and other neighbouring countries - held up oil derricks studded with skulls, giant paper sheaves of yellow and purple corn, and oversized puppets dressed as peasants. One man came wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt, sticking a forest campaign sticker on the guerrilla's beret.
There was even a "Green Inca" in green robes adorned with a brass breastplate and crown, who jumped up on a concrete block with a Peruvian flag, striking a pose.
Wednesday's event was closely modelled on last September's People's Climate March when 400,000 people poured through the streets of Manhattan ahead of the United Nations climate summit.
Campaigners believe the strong showing in Manhattan - far beyond their expectations - and the support from celebrities, Democratic members of Congress, and the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, was a turning point for climate action.
Since September, there has been growing momentum behind the talks which are intended to produce a global agreement on cutting carbon pollution by the end of next year.
But the message of the Lima march was even more sober. Peru is under growing risk from climate change, which is melting the glaciers that are its source of fresh water, and changing the chemistry of the Pacific, which is an important source of food supply.
Despite those gathering dangers, environmental activists in Latin America regularly come under attack from powerful corporate interests on the hunt for oil, minerals and forest products in territories that are home to indigenous peoples.
Earlier this week, the body of an indigenous leader who had opposed a copper and gold mining project was discovered in Ecuador. The activist had apparently been tortured before he was killed.
Last week, the authorities in Ecuador confiscated a bus carrying protesters on their way to Lima to protest against their president, Rafael Correa, at the climate talks.
For me it was important just to be here," said Ivonne Yánez, a protester from Acción Ecológica/Oil Watch in Ecuador.
Many indigenous people feel shut out of the negotiations. Yánez said it was also critical to send a message to negotiators that many of the local people simply do not want the pro-business solutions that are a key part of the UN process.
"It is very important to say there is no homogeneous position regarding development," she said. "A lot of the people here reject oil, reject mining. They even reject business projects that are supposed to be for forests."
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
87 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 10, 2014 Wednesday 5:03 PM GMT
Fracking and Lima climate talks slammed at Nature Rights Tribunal;
Thirteen judges meet in Peru to hear accusations that the rights of 'Mother Earth' are being violated
BYLINE: David Hill
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1251 words
It's difficult to know what was more moving or arresting. There was the Ponca lady, Casey Camp-Horinek, starting to cry as she spoke about the impacts of hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking", on her people in what she called "occupied" Oklahoma in the US, and saying "We're having a funeral a week... We're this close to being fracked to death."
Then there was Kandi Mossett, from North Dakota, a fracking "victim who wasn't able to come". She appeared on the projector and broke down too, telling how "these radioactive frack socks [that are] off the charts on the Geiger counters" are being dumped and found by children who say things like, "Hey, we're catching bugs with our nets."
That was right after Shannon Biggs, the executive director of Movement Rights, had explained that fracking in the US is destroying lives, livelihoods, groundwater, rivers, farms, prairies, communities and landscapes, as well as causing "earthquakes where earthquakes don't exist" and poisoning "millions and millions and millions" of gallons of water that are "taken out of the hydrological cycle forever".
"[Fracking] is a total and utter form of destruction," said Biggs, who calls Mossett's indigenous territory "the most intensive fracking site" in the US. "You take land that is beautiful and full of life and vibrant with a dynamic sense of biodiversity, and we turn this landscape with fracking technology into waste land that is poisoned land [with] sick animals and sick human beings."
Camp-Horinek and Biggs were speaking before the International Tribunal for the Rights of Nature which met in Lima, Peru, on Friday and Saturday. The objective was to investigate cases of possible violations of the Rights of Nature as laid out in the Universal Declaration of Rights of Mother Earth made in Bolivia in 2010.
In total 12 cases were heard, by 13 judges, with an Ecuadorian lawyer, Ramiro Avila, acting as "prosecutor for the earth" and numerous experts and impacted people from around the world called as witnesses. One such case was made against fracking for its impacts on "the subsoil of Mother Earth", and another against "climate change caused by human activities" - just as the United Nations' climate talks are being held elsewhere in Lima.
According to Pablo Solón, a Bolivian from Focus on the Global South, the rising and acidifying oceans, biodiversity loss, desertification, forest fires and increasing number of extreme weather events caused by global warming constitute a "systematic violation of Mother Earth's" rights.
Solón was joined by Nnimmo Bassey, from Nigeria, who said that "business as usual means cooking Africa" and cited statistics of six million people displaced by floods in Africa in 2012 and a projected 54% increase in African civil wars by 2030 as a result of climate change. Bassey showed photos of a fisherman returning from work, both feet black with oil, and who now sells firewood.
"He came back with nothing [that day]," Bassey told the Tribunal. "Livelihoods have been absolutely destroyed... [Oil brings] disregard for people, for culture, for life, for everything."
The climate change case also included severe criticism of - and total opposition to - certain measures being considered and/or proposed by the UN, governments and companies as "solutions" to global warming. These included various geo-engineering technologies - described by Silvia Ribeiro from the ETC Group as a "very useful way" of avoiding addressing the fundamental causes of climate change - as well as "climate-smart agriculture" and carbon markets.
"[They're] basically a mechanism to cheat," said Mary Lou Malig, from the Global Forest Coalition, about carbon markets. "It's about enabling you to pollute. Instead of cutting your emissions, you increase them and pretend to reduce by offsetting."
Another case was made against "Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation" (Redd) - a concept which involves paying those who ostensibly reduce emissions by supposedly keeping forests standing, depending on how much carbon is stored in them. Criticism was as much about the principles and philosophy behind Redd as how it works in practice.
Ninawa, an indigenous Kaxinawá man from Brazil, expressed concern about a Redd project in his home state, Acre, saying, "Nature has no price. It's our forest, it's our food, it's our spirit."
Ruth Nyambura, from the African Biodiversity Network, said that indigenous Sengwer people in Kenya are being evicted from their land and having their houses burnt by the Kenya Forest Service because of a Redd project funded by the World Bank, and called it a "new form of conservation" and "colonization."
"This is not "management", it is "government,"" she said. "We must reject the financialization of nature. We must reject Redd definitely."
Casandra Smithie went even further, citing a whole series of peoples who have struggled against, or have been threatened by, Redd and calling it a "crime against Mother Earth, Father Sky, and humanity." The key perpetrators, she noted, such as the UN, the World Bank, extractive industries, multilateral banks, chemical companies, governments and stock exchanges, all have their headquarters in the industrialised northern countries.
"[Redd gives] permits to pollute," Smithie told the Tribunal. "[It means] forests of the world acting as a sponge for northern industrial countries' pollution. They can pollute if they grab forests in the global south."
Other cases were made against "human activities" affecting the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, the BP Deepwater Horizon blowout's impacts on the "sea and living beings" in the Gulf of Mexico, the Belo Monte dam in Brazil for its impacts on the Xingu and Amazon rivers, Chevron-Texaco for oil operations in the Ecuadorian Amazon, oil exploitation affecting four river basins in the Peruvian Amazon, oil operations in the far east of the Yasuní National Park in Ecuador, the Mirador mine in Ecuador, the Conga mine in Peru, and mining and oil operations in the Bagua region in Peru.
The UN climate talks, taking place elsewhere across Lima, came in for severe criticism at the Tribunal. Among other things, it was noted, by Malig, that agriculture isn't up for negotiation, and that the UN is placing great hope in Redd - the "crime against humanity" which, according to Smithie, will be the "basis of the Paris accord", i.e. the agreement for post-2020, when the Kyoto Protocol expires, that could be reached at next year's UN climate talks in the French capital.
The Tribunal responded to the hearings by emitting one damning sentence including the verdict that BP and both the Australian and Ecuadorian governments have violated the Rights of Nature, and by issuing a series of orders. These include that BP should abstain from any future deepwater exploration, that Australia should restrict tourism involving the Great Barrier Reef, that Ecuador should suspend Mirador and restore the impacted area, and that Chevron should comply with Ecuadorian court orders to restore damaged areas in the Amazon and pay financial compensation - a ruling that Chevron argued had been reached by fraud and racketeering and which it challenged by filing suit against the Ecuadorian plaintiffs and their lawyers.
The Tribunal's sentence also acknowledged statements made by Camp-Horinek and Patricia Gualinga, a Kichwa woman from Ecuador, about how the earth is a "living being" on which "all other living beings depend" and that it has a right to life, to respect, and to be consulted.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
88 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 10, 2014 Wednesday 12:34 PM GMT
What to do when climate change poses a risk to your water supply;
Assessing and tackling the risk of contamination will be essential to business success in the 21st-century economy
BYLINE: Peter Gleick
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 966 words
As evidence of climate change mounts, businesses across all sectors of the economy are developing strategies for identifying and avoiding the risks it poses. Given the important role of freshwater in powering economic development and growth, and the vulnerability of our water resources, efforts have focused on the links between climate change, water and the corporate sector.
For businesses, risk assessment has always been an important part of planning and operations. The failure to honestly and comprehensively assess risk can undermine production and profitability.
Extensive work has been carried out to try to evaluate water-related risks to businesses by organisations such as the Pacific Institute's Corporate Sustainability Program, the UN CEO Water Mandate, Ceres, BSR, and others. In the past such work focused on water scarcity, the impact of extreme events such as droughts and floods, and the threat of contamination. More recently, an emphasis on how climate change will contribute to these risks has been added.
A critical driver of success in the 21st-century economy will be how companies and investors balance the competing demands for water and other resources in a changing climate. The best scientific assessments on climate threats to water resources - including those from the the IPCC and the US National Academy of Sciences - suggest rising temperatures could pose the biggest risk. As demands for water by agriculture and ecosystems increase, water quality in lakes worsens and the loss of snow and ice to mountain regions speeds up.
Changing storm patterns will influence flood and drought frequency and intensity, altering runoff in major river basins. Rising sea levels are already pushing salt water into coastal ecosystems and groundwater aquifers and threatening water-related infrastructure such as wastewater treatment plants.
These risks will directly affect business operations. They will impact on the availability of raw materials, the reliability of supply chains, demand for products and financial returns. Declines or disruptions in water supply can undermine manufacturing operations where water is needed for production, irrigation, material processing, cooling, or washing and cleaning.
Contaminated water supply can lead to higher costs for pre-treatment and the need for new investment in infrastructure. Changes in the quantity and timing of water availability are already affecting thermal and hydropower generation. And all of these challenges make companies more susceptible to reputational, regulatory, and financial risks - particularly in developing countries where local people often lack access to safe and reliable drinking water.
These risks are more than hypothetical: beverage companies in India have already lost the licence to operate in some communities due to concerns about groundwater overdraft. Oil and gas producers have suffered financial and reputational losses (pdf) after contaminating water supplies in Latin America. A growing number of companies that source products from regions short of water are publicly disclosing their concerns about water-related risks in financial documents. Taken together, all of these factors present businesses with increased uncertainty about the future of water.
What businesses can do to manage water-climate risks?
1. Measure and publicly disclose information on the use of water and energy throughout company operations, including through the supply chain. These resources pose risks and, unless they are measured and key metrics shared, those risks cannot be managed and reduced.
2. Assess physical, regulatory and reputational water risks associated with climate change. Explicit attention should be paid to understanding the potential impacts of climate change on local water resources.
3. Include these risks in your business planning and operations.
4. Engage others early. Water-management planning should involve everyone from employees and investors, to customers, local communities, the public and government. This can reduce misunderstandings and help corporations anticipate and respond to emerging issues.
5. Seek opportunities for partnerships. Because water, energy and climate are connected to social, political, cultural, and environmental issues, companies can rarely achieve the best management outcomes on their own. By pooling knowledge and resources, companies can respond to water and climate change concerns more efficiently and effectively than through individual actions. An online platform for water stewardship and collective action on climate resilience and adaptation already exist and are thriving.
Climate change is now unavoidable, with severe risks to water quality and supply. No matter what our politicians and governments do to address emissions, all of society - including the business community - must prepare to understand and address the water-related challenges these changes will bring.
Dr Peter Gleick is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences and a scientist tackling global freshwater, climate and energy challenges.
Read more stories like this:
· The US, South Africa and Australia are turning wastewater into drinking water
· Water wars: a new reality for business and governments
· Brought to you by Grundfos: Smart cities secure water supplies while global risks loom
The water hub is funded by Grundfos. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled 'brought to you by'. Find out more here.
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
89 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 10, 2014 Wednesday 7:25 AM GMT
Green Climate Fund: Abbott's claim of earmarking spending is questioned;
PM lists areas where Australian funds would go, but experts say no country is able to determine exactly where money is spent
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1061 words
Australia is providing $200m to the international Green Climate Fund on the condition that it can dictate where the money is spent - something that appears to contravene the fund's rules.
Tony Abbott said Australia's funding would be "strictly invested in practical projects". The environment minister, Greg Hunt, said Australia was providing the money "on the condition it will be spent within the region for our priorities".
Asked on Sky News whether Australia would be able to dictate exactly where the money was spent, Hunt said Julie Bishop was going through that process but was "in a very strong position". He said Australia was "very, very confident we will achieve the outcomes we seek", having previously been concerned the money would disappear.
But experts said Australia would not be able to determine exactly where the money went under present Green Climate Fund rules.
The fund - which has so far attracted more than $10bn in contributions - is governed by a board that has full responsibility for funding decisions.
At a meeting in October, the board decided broad guidelines (pdf) for how it would allocate the money. They included that contributing countries would have a limited ability to request that some of their funding went either to the "private sector facility" - which allows financing of private sector projects - or to government projects to reduce greenhouse emissions and help poor countries adapt to the impact of climate change.
But the rules do not appear to provide for countries to dictate what countries or projects "their" money would fund.
Felix Fallasch, an international climate finance analyst at Berlin-based Climate Analytics, said the ultimate decision-making authority over any funding was exclusively with the fund's board.
He said: "Contributors cannot earmark their funding for specific thematic activities ... or in which region the funding will be disbursed ... So yes, there will be allocations to Pacific countries and to the private sector but whether these allocations come from the Australian, British or Korean contributions to the fund is not traceable."
John Connor, the executive director of the Climate Institute thinktank, said the idea that funding would be provided on conditions was controversial and not settled.
"Hypothecating the money you give is a big ask and will cause disputes. Other have tried, but most have simply said the governance needs to be right ... not where the money is directed," he said.
"It is very much against the spirit of it for us to try to direct where every last penny goes."
A spokesman for the department of foreign affairs said Australia's approach to the fund was consistent with the approach the US was taking.
"We will begin discussions shortly with the GCF to formalise our pledge and will enter into an agreement once discussions have been completed," the spokesman said.
The Abbott government's announcement on Wednesday that Australia would contribute $200m over four years from its existing aid budget to the fund represents another policy reversal. The fund is a body the prime minister had previously disparaged as a "Bob Brown bank on an international scale" to which Australia would make no contribution.
The foreign minister, Julie Bishop, formally announced the commitment at the United Nations climate summit in Lima, and Abbott suggested Australia would have the ability to determine exactly where its money went.
"The pledge to the Green Climate Fund will facilitate private sector-led economic growth in the Indo-Pacific region with a particular focus on investment in infrastructure, energy, forestry... and emissions reduction programmes," he said.
Hunt said: "We set the terms of our engagement and those of our involvement, and those terms are very clear: support for the Asia-Pacific, a focus on rainforests, a focus on combating illegal logging."
"The difference here is that we're able to target what we're doing to the region. So on our terms, in our time, in a way which protects the rainforests of the area, our priorities which don't just help reduce emissions, but they protect the iconic species."
Bishop received applause when she made her announcement in Lima - a meeting the prime minister's office initially refused to allow her to attend.
The Climate Institute welcomed the Australian contribution as "the first step towards fair and proper financial support for poor and vulnerable countries responding to the climate challenge".
the Australian Conservation Foundation said the contribution was welcome, but the money should be in addition to the existing aid budget.
At the G20 meeting in November the prime minister resisted mounting global pressure to commit to the fund, which is designed to help poor countries adapt to climate change.
He argued Australia was already spending $2.5bn on its domestic Direct Action fund and providing $10bn in capital to a so-called "green bank" - which he is trying to abolish.
Speaking in Melbourne, Abbott admitted he had "made various comments some time ago" about the fund but said "as we've seen things develop over the last few months" it was now appropriate for Australia to make "a modest, prudent and proportional commitment" in the interests of being a good international citizen.
Asked about the fund before last year's UN climate meeting in Warsaw, the prime minister said: "We're not going to be making any contributions to that."
It was reported that at one of its first cabinet meetings the Abbott government decided it would make no contributions to the fund.
At the time the prime minister compared it to a domestic fund championed by the former Greens leader Bob Brown, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which Abbott wants to abolish.
He told the Australian: "One thing the current government will never do is say one thing at home and a different thing abroad. We are committed to dismantling the Bob Brown bank at home so it would be impossible for us to support a Bob Brown bank on an international scale."
The government also pointedly dissented from support for the fund in a communique from last November's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting - a stance backed by Canada. Canada also recently announced it would now be contribute to the fund.
The fund plans to start providing small amounts of cash to developing countries before the end of 2015.
Bishop's office was contacted for comment.
LOAD-DATE: December 10, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
90 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 10, 2014 Wednesday 7:25 AM GMT
Green Climate Fund: Abbott's claim of earmarking spending is questioned;
PM lists areas where Australian funds would go, but experts say no country is able to determine exactly where money is spent
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1061 words
Australia is providing $200m to the international Green Climate Fund on the condition that it can dictate where the money is spent - something that appears to contravene the fund's rules.
Tony Abbott said Australia's funding would be "strictly invested in practical projects". The environment minister, Greg Hunt, said Australia was providing the money "on the condition it will be spent within the region for our priorities".
Asked on Sky News whether Australia would be able to dictate exactly where the money was spent, Hunt said Julie Bishop was going through that process but was "in a very strong position". He said Australia was "very, very confident we will achieve the outcomes we seek", having previously been concerned the money would disappear.
But experts said Australia would not be able to determine exactly where the money went under present Green Climate Fund rules.
The fund - which has so far attracted more than $10bn in contributions - is governed by a board that has full responsibility for funding decisions.
At a meeting in October, the board decided broad guidelines (pdf) for how it would allocate the money. They included that contributing countries would have a limited ability to request that some of their funding went either to the "private sector facility" - which allows financing of private sector projects - or to government projects to reduce greenhouse emissions and help poor countries adapt to the impact of climate change.
But the rules do not appear to provide for countries to dictate what countries or projects "their" money would fund.
Felix Fallasch, an international climate finance analyst at Berlin-based Climate Analytics, said the ultimate decision-making authority over any funding was exclusively with the fund's board.
He said: "Contributors cannot earmark their funding for specific thematic activities ... or in which region the funding will be disbursed ... So yes, there will be allocations to Pacific countries and to the private sector but whether these allocations come from the Australian, British or Korean contributions to the fund is not traceable."
John Connor, the executive director of the Climate Institute thinktank, said the idea that funding would be provided on conditions was controversial and not settled.
"Hypothecating the money you give is a big ask and will cause disputes. Other have tried, but most have simply said the governance needs to be right ... not where the money is directed," he said.
"It is very much against the spirit of it for us to try to direct where every last penny goes."
A spokesman for the department of foreign affairs said Australia's approach to the fund was consistent with the approach the US was taking.
"We will begin discussions shortly with the GCF to formalise our pledge and will enter into an agreement once discussions have been completed," the spokesman said.
The Abbott government's announcement on Wednesday that Australia would contribute $200m over four years from its existing aid budget to the fund represents another policy reversal. The fund is a body the prime minister had previously disparaged as a "Bob Brown bank on an international scale" to which Australia would make no contribution.
The foreign minister, Julie Bishop, formally announced the commitment at the United Nations climate summit in Lima, and Abbott suggested Australia would have the ability to determine exactly where its money went.
"The pledge to the Green Climate Fund will facilitate private sector-led economic growth in the Indo-Pacific region with a particular focus on investment in infrastructure, energy, forestry... and emissions reduction programmes," he said.
Hunt said: "We set the terms of our engagement and those of our involvement, and those terms are very clear: support for the Asia-Pacific, a focus on rainforests, a focus on combating illegal logging."
"The difference here is that we're able to target what we're doing to the region. So on our terms, in our time, in a way which protects the rainforests of the area, our priorities which don't just help reduce emissions, but they protect the iconic species."
Bishop received applause when she made her announcement in Lima - a meeting the prime minister's office initially refused to allow her to attend.
The Climate Institute welcomed the Australian contribution as "the first step towards fair and proper financial support for poor and vulnerable countries responding to the climate challenge".
the Australian Conservation Foundation said the contribution was welcome, but the money should be in addition to the existing aid budget.
At the G20 meeting in November the prime minister resisted mounting global pressure to commit to the fund, which is designed to help poor countries adapt to climate change.
He argued Australia was already spending $2.5bn on its domestic Direct Action fund and providing $10bn in capital to a so-called "green bank" - which he is trying to abolish.
Speaking in Melbourne, Abbott admitted he had "made various comments some time ago" about the fund but said "as we've seen things develop over the last few months" it was now appropriate for Australia to make "a modest, prudent and proportional commitment" in the interests of being a good international citizen.
Asked about the fund before last year's UN climate meeting in Warsaw, the prime minister said: "We're not going to be making any contributions to that."
It was reported that at one of its first cabinet meetings the Abbott government decided it would make no contributions to the fund.
At the time the prime minister compared it to a domestic fund championed by the former Greens leader Bob Brown, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which Abbott wants to abolish.
He told the Australian: "One thing the current government will never do is say one thing at home and a different thing abroad. We are committed to dismantling the Bob Brown bank at home so it would be impossible for us to support a Bob Brown bank on an international scale."
The government also pointedly dissented from support for the fund in a communique from last November's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting - a stance backed by Canada. Canada also recently announced it would now be contribute to the fund.
The fund plans to start providing small amounts of cash to developing countries before the end of 2015.
Bishop's office was contacted for comment.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
91 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 10, 2014 Wednesday 7:25 AM GMT
Green Climate Fund: Abbott's claim of earmarking spending is questioned;
PM lists areas where Australian funds would go, but experts say no country is able to determine exactly where money is spent
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1061 words
Australia is providing $200m to the international Green Climate Fund on the condition that it can dictate where the money is spent - something that appears to contravene the fund's rules.
Tony Abbott said Australia's funding would be "strictly invested in practical projects". The environment minister, Greg Hunt, said Australia was providing the money "on the condition it will be spent within the region for our priorities".
Asked on Sky News whether Australia would be able to dictate exactly where the money was spent, Hunt said Julie Bishop was going through that process but was "in a very strong position". He said Australia was "very, very confident we will achieve the outcomes we seek", having previously been concerned the money would disappear.
But experts said Australia would not be able to determine exactly where the money went under present Green Climate Fund rules.
The fund - which has so far attracted more than $10bn in contributions - is governed by a board that has full responsibility for funding decisions.
At a meeting in October, the board decided broad guidelines (pdf) for how it would allocate the money. They included that contributing countries would have a limited ability to request that some of their funding went either to the "private sector facility" - which allows financing of private sector projects - or to government projects to reduce greenhouse emissions and help poor countries adapt to the impact of climate change.
But the rules do not appear to provide for countries to dictate what countries or projects "their" money would fund.
Felix Fallasch, an international climate finance analyst at Berlin-based Climate Analytics, said the ultimate decision-making authority over any funding was exclusively with the fund's board.
He said: "Contributors cannot earmark their funding for specific thematic activities ... or in which region the funding will be disbursed ... So yes, there will be allocations to Pacific countries and to the private sector but whether these allocations come from the Australian, British or Korean contributions to the fund is not traceable."
John Connor, the executive director of the Climate Institute thinktank, said the idea that funding would be provided on conditions was controversial and not settled.
"Hypothecating the money you give is a big ask and will cause disputes. Other have tried, but most have simply said the governance needs to be right ... not where the money is directed," he said.
"It is very much against the spirit of it for us to try to direct where every last penny goes."
A spokesman for the department of foreign affairs said Australia's approach to the fund was consistent with the approach the US was taking.
"We will begin discussions shortly with the GCF to formalise our pledge and will enter into an agreement once discussions have been completed," the spokesman said.
The Abbott government's announcement on Wednesday that Australia would contribute $200m over four years from its existing aid budget to the fund represents another policy reversal. The fund is a body the prime minister had previously disparaged as a "Bob Brown bank on an international scale" to which Australia would make no contribution.
The foreign minister, Julie Bishop, formally announced the commitment at the United Nations climate summit in Lima, and Abbott suggested Australia would have the ability to determine exactly where its money went.
"The pledge to the Green Climate Fund will facilitate private sector-led economic growth in the Indo-Pacific region with a particular focus on investment in infrastructure, energy, forestry... and emissions reduction programmes," he said.
Hunt said: "We set the terms of our engagement and those of our involvement, and those terms are very clear: support for the Asia-Pacific, a focus on rainforests, a focus on combating illegal logging."
"The difference here is that we're able to target what we're doing to the region. So on our terms, in our time, in a way which protects the rainforests of the area, our priorities which don't just help reduce emissions, but they protect the iconic species."
Bishop received applause when she made her announcement in Lima - a meeting the prime minister's office initially refused to allow her to attend.
The Climate Institute welcomed the Australian contribution as "the first step towards fair and proper financial support for poor and vulnerable countries responding to the climate challenge".
the Australian Conservation Foundation said the contribution was welcome, but the money should be in addition to the existing aid budget.
At the G20 meeting in November the prime minister resisted mounting global pressure to commit to the fund, which is designed to help poor countries adapt to climate change.
He argued Australia was already spending $2.5bn on its domestic Direct Action fund and providing $10bn in capital to a so-called "green bank" - which he is trying to abolish.
Speaking in Melbourne, Abbott admitted he had "made various comments some time ago" about the fund but said "as we've seen things develop over the last few months" it was now appropriate for Australia to make "a modest, prudent and proportional commitment" in the interests of being a good international citizen.
Asked about the fund before last year's UN climate meeting in Warsaw, the prime minister said: "We're not going to be making any contributions to that."
It was reported that at one of its first cabinet meetings the Abbott government decided it would make no contributions to the fund.
At the time the prime minister compared it to a domestic fund championed by the former Greens leader Bob Brown, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which Abbott wants to abolish.
He told the Australian: "One thing the current government will never do is say one thing at home and a different thing abroad. We are committed to dismantling the Bob Brown bank at home so it would be impossible for us to support a Bob Brown bank on an international scale."
The government also pointedly dissented from support for the fund in a communique from last November's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting - a stance backed by Canada. Canada also recently announced it would now be contribute to the fund.
The fund plans to start providing small amounts of cash to developing countries before the end of 2015.
Bishop's office was contacted for comment.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
92 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 10, 2014 Wednesday 7:00 AM GMT
Climate change in Nicaragua pushes farmers into uncertain world;
As crops fail and the weather becomes less predictable, Nicaraguans are seeing rising food prices amid debate on how to defend the country against climate change
BYLINE: Oliver Balch in Chinandega province
SECTION: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT
LENGTH: 847 words
Mercedes Azevedo lost her house and 17 relatives when a mudslide triggered by hurricane Mitch engulfed her village in October 1998. More than 2,500 people died in the Casita Volcano tragedy, one of the worst in Nicaragua's recent history. Now, 51-year-old Azevedo and her fellow survivors find themselves under threat from the weather once again. This time it's too little rain, not too much. "I lost all my crops in the first harvest: three manzanas (5.2 acres) of corn and one manzana of beans. Everything, gone ... I rent my land and now have debts I can't repay," she says, standing on the porch of the house in Santa Maria, Chinandega province, where she was resettled after the hurricane.
Drought, floods and price hikes
She's not alone. A severe four-month drought during this year's "wet" season hit agricultural production in two-thirds of the country's 153 municipalities. More than 100,000 farmers were affected, according to official figures . At the height of the drought, thought to be the worst in Nicaragua for 44 years, the government needed to provide subsidised rice and beans to stave off a hunger crisis. At one stage, it even advised people to supplement their diet by breeding iguanas for consumption. "It's been tough. We've had to substitute beans for rice, tortillas and potatoes," says 49-year-old Julieta Bucardo, a shopper in the central market of León. "The price of beans, for example, reached more than 37 cordovas (£0.89) recently. At the start of the year, we used to think 15 was a lot." When the prolonged drought eventually ended in late August, it did so with such violence that the government announced an emergency to cope with the flash floods. Only with the recent arrival of the year's second harvest has the price of staple grains begun to fall. Nicaragua's recent weather patterns will not surprise many climate scientists. The 2013 global climate risk survey (pdf) places the Central American nation of 6 million people fourth in its list of countries most affected by climate change.
"The variability of the climate is starting to become an almost normal process, with long periods of drought and then floods," says Germán Quezada, a climate specialist at Centro Humboldt, a Managua-based NGO. "The problem is that the usual pattern of cultivation has been thrown up in the air. People just aren't sure when to plant or what to plant," says Quezada. "Small farmers are the worst hit because they don't have the resources or irrigation that the large farmers have."
A recent study (pdf) by the International Centre of Tropical Agriculture predicts that if temperatures continue to rise, Nicaragua could see its annual corn and bean production drop by up to 34,000 tonnes and 9,000 tonnes by 2020, respectively.
Nicaragua's coffee industry is already counting the cost. The country's second largest agricultural export earner registered losses of up to $60m in 2012-13 due to an outbreak of coffee leaf rust, which spread to 37% of the crop. "Coffee leaf rust only used to affect farms below around 800 metres. With the changes in climate, we're now seeing the disease reach as high as 1,300 metres," says Santiago Dolmos, an agronomist with Cecocafen, a major coffee exporter.
Climate-friendly agriculture
"Treating these kind of losses as an emergency situation is not the answer. It has to be part of a longer-term development solution," argues Azevedo.
For Nicaragua's agribusiness lobby, such a solution lies in the greater use of chemicals and more advanced technological inputs. Upanic, for instance, an influential industry group, held the country's first conference on agricultural biotechnology in October.
Environmental groups are pushing for a different approach, arguing that the best defence against climate change is a more diversified, more ecological approach to farming. Their arguments chime with Nicaragua's strategy for food sovereignty and security (pdf) , which includes a law promoting organic and agro-ecological production.
"Large-scale agriculture isn't the answer," argues Rafael Henríquez, a spokesman for Oxfam Nicaragua. "Ironically, it's the poorest farmers that are closest to the agro-ecological model, although it's more through necessity than environmental conviction."
The national roundtable for risk management in Nicaragua, an alliance of 20 smallholder organisations, is working to formalise these incipient, ad hoc efforts with research and training in best practice. Nicaragua's commitment to small-scale, ecological agriculture is by no means secure, says Martín Cuadra, a rural development expert at Simas, a Managua-based research institute and member of the roundtable. He points to loopholes in a proposed law on the registration of seeds that could open the door to genetically modified crops. "The effects of climate change combine with global pressures from agribusiness companies to introduce GMOs," says Cuadra, who believes such a move would ultimately imperil smallholders' freedom. "Those who control the seeds control the stomach. And those who control the stomach, control life itself."
LOAD-DATE: December 10, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
93 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 10, 2014 Wednesday 7:00 AM GMT
Climate change in Nicaragua pushes farmers into uncertain world;
As crops fail and the weather becomes less predictable, Nicaraguans are seeing rising food prices amid debate on how to defend the country against climate change
BYLINE: Oliver Balch in Chinandega province
SECTION: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT
LENGTH: 847 words
Mercedes Azevedo lost her house and 17 relatives when a mudslide triggered by hurricane Mitch engulfed her village in October 1998. More than 2,500 people died in the Casita Volcano tragedy, one of the worst in Nicaragua's recent history. Now, 51-year-old Azevedo and her fellow survivors find themselves under threat from the weather once again. This time it's too little rain, not too much. "I lost all my crops in the first harvest: three manzanas (5.2 acres) of corn and one manzana of beans. Everything, gone ... I rent my land and now have debts I can't repay," she says, standing on the porch of the house in Santa Maria, Chinandega province, where she was resettled after the hurricane.
Drought, floods and price hikes
She's not alone. A severe four-month drought during this year's "wet" season hit agricultural production in two-thirds of the country's 153 municipalities. More than 100,000 farmers were affected, according to official figures . At the height of the drought, thought to be the worst in Nicaragua for 44 years, the government needed to provide subsidised rice and beans to stave off a hunger crisis. At one stage, it even advised people to supplement their diet by breeding iguanas for consumption. "It's been tough. We've had to substitute beans for rice, tortillas and potatoes," says 49-year-old Julieta Bucardo, a shopper in the central market of León. "The price of beans, for example, reached more than 37 cordovas (£0.89) recently. At the start of the year, we used to think 15 was a lot." When the prolonged drought eventually ended in late August, it did so with such violence that the government announced an emergency to cope with the flash floods. Only with the recent arrival of the year's second harvest has the price of staple grains begun to fall. Nicaragua's recent weather patterns will not surprise many climate scientists. The 2013 global climate risk survey (pdf) places the Central American nation of 6 million people fourth in its list of countries most affected by climate change.
"The variability of the climate is starting to become an almost normal process, with long periods of drought and then floods," says Germán Quezada, a climate specialist at Centro Humboldt, a Managua-based NGO. "The problem is that the usual pattern of cultivation has been thrown up in the air. People just aren't sure when to plant or what to plant," says Quezada. "Small farmers are the worst hit because they don't have the resources or irrigation that the large farmers have."
A recent study (pdf) by the International Centre of Tropical Agriculture predicts that if temperatures continue to rise, Nicaragua could see its annual corn and bean production drop by up to 34,000 tonnes and 9,000 tonnes by 2020, respectively.
Nicaragua's coffee industry is already counting the cost. The country's second largest agricultural export earner registered losses of up to $60m in 2012-13 due to an outbreak of coffee leaf rust, which spread to 37% of the crop. "Coffee leaf rust only used to affect farms below around 800 metres. With the changes in climate, we're now seeing the disease reach as high as 1,300 metres," says Santiago Dolmos, an agronomist with Cecocafen, a major coffee exporter.
Climate-friendly agriculture
"Treating these kind of losses as an emergency situation is not the answer. It has to be part of a longer-term development solution," argues Azevedo.
For Nicaragua's agribusiness lobby, such a solution lies in the greater use of chemicals and more advanced technological inputs. Upanic, for instance, an influential industry group, held the country's first conference on agricultural biotechnology in October.
Environmental groups are pushing for a different approach, arguing that the best defence against climate change is a more diversified, more ecological approach to farming. Their arguments chime with Nicaragua's strategy for food sovereignty and security (pdf) , which includes a law promoting organic and agro-ecological production.
"Large-scale agriculture isn't the answer," argues Rafael Henríquez, a spokesman for Oxfam Nicaragua. "Ironically, it's the poorest farmers that are closest to the agro-ecological model, although it's more through necessity than environmental conviction."
The national roundtable for risk management in Nicaragua, an alliance of 20 smallholder organisations, is working to formalise these incipient, ad hoc efforts with research and training in best practice. Nicaragua's commitment to small-scale, ecological agriculture is by no means secure, says Martín Cuadra, a rural development expert at Simas, a Managua-based research institute and member of the roundtable. He points to loopholes in a proposed law on the registration of seeds that could open the door to genetically modified crops. "The effects of climate change combine with global pressures from agribusiness companies to introduce GMOs," says Cuadra, who believes such a move would ultimately imperil smallholders' freedom. "Those who control the seeds control the stomach. And those who control the stomach, control life itself."
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
94 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 10, 2014 Wednesday 6:31 AM GMT
Green Climate Fund will get $200m from Australia after Tony Abbott's about-turn;
Prime minister had previously disparaged the international fund designed to help poor countries adapt to climate change, and said Australia would not contribute
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor, and Suzanne Goldenberg in Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 763 words
The federal government has pledged $200m over four years from its existing aid budget to the international Green Climate Fund, which Tony Abbott previously disparaged as a "Bob Brown bank on an international scale".
The announcement represents another reversal by the government. At the time of the G20 meeting last month the prime minister resisted mounting global pressure to commit to the fund, designed to help poor countries adapt to climate change.
He argued Australia was already spending $2.5bn on its domestic Direct Action fund and providing $10bn in capital to a so-called "green bank" - which he is trying to abolish.
The change of position was announced on Tuesday, as foreign minister Julie Bishop prepared to address the United Nations conference on climate change in Lima - a meeting the prime minister's office initially refused to allow her to attend.
Abbott and Bishop made the announcement in a joint statement.
"The pledge to the Green Climate Fund will facilitate private sector-led economic growth in the Indo-Pacific region with a particular focus on investment in infrastructure, energy, forestry... and emissions reduction programmes."
The pledge brought an immediate burst of applause at the UN conference.
"We have a strong track record in delivering climate finance," Julie Bishop told the room.
Speaking to reporters in Melbourne, Abbott admitted he had "made various comments some time ago" about the fund but said "as we've seen things develop over the last few months" it was now appropriate for Australia to make "a modest, prudent and proportional commitment" in the interests of being a "good international citizen".
"That money will be strictly invested in practical projects in our region," he said.
Asked about the fund before last year's UN climate meeting in Warsaw, the prime minister said: "We're not going to be making any contributions to that."
It was reported that at one of its first cabinet meetings the Abbott government decided it would make no contributions to the fund.
At the time the prime minister compared it to a domestic fund championed by the former Greens leader Bob Brown, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which Abbott wants to abolish.
He told the Australian: "One thing the current government will never do is say one thing at home and a different thing abroad. We are committed to dismantling the Bob Brown bank at home so it would be impossible for us to support a Bob Brown bank on an international scale."
The government also pointedly dissented from support for the fund in a communique from last November's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting - a stance backed by Canada. Canada also recently announced it would now be contribute to the fund.
The announcement also revealed that the prime minister's department would take over the development of any post-2020 emissions reduction targets that Australia might make before next year's United Nations climate talks in Paris.
It said the review would take into consideration action by the world's developed economies and Australia's major trading partners.
"Any new post-2020 target would be announced in mid-2015 after the taskforce has completed its work," it said.
Campaign groups broadly welcomed the shift in position - but still said that Australia could afford to do more.
"This can only be called a first step and falls short of its fair share," said Kelly Dent, a campaigner for Oxfam Australia. Still, she said: "Australia's pledge, just days after reports that they would not contribute to the fund, is an important message of support and a recognition of the country's responsibility to act."
The Climate Institute think tank welcomed the Australian contribution as "the first step towards fair and proper financial support for poor and vulnerable countries responding to the climate challenge".
It said the amount fell short of the $350m a year the institute believed was a fair contribution from Australia.
"However, the government has an opportunity to demonstrate its total climate finance contribution when it submits its plan to scale up climate finance to the international community early next year.
"As part of this process, the government should outline how this contribution is in addition to the existing activities it is taking through the aid program and other bilateral activities."
The Australian Conservation Foundation said the contribution was welcome, but the money should be in addition to the existing aid budget.
The G20 communique urged countries to make contributions to the fund - although the language was initially resisted by Australia.
LOAD-DATE: December 10, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
95 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 10, 2014 Wednesday 6:31 AM GMT
Green Climate Fund will get $200m from Australia after Tony Abbott's about-turn;
Prime minister had previously disparaged the international fund designed to help poor countries adapt to climate change, and said Australia would not contribute
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor, and Suzanne Goldenberg in Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 763 words
The federal government has pledged $200m over four years from its existing aid budget to the international Green Climate Fund, which Tony Abbott previously disparaged as a "Bob Brown bank on an international scale".
The announcement represents another reversal by the government. At the time of the G20 meeting last month the prime minister resisted mounting global pressure to commit to the fund, designed to help poor countries adapt to climate change.
He argued Australia was already spending $2.5bn on its domestic Direct Action fund and providing $10bn in capital to a so-called "green bank" - which he is trying to abolish.
The change of position was announced on Tuesday, as foreign minister Julie Bishop prepared to address the United Nations conference on climate change in Lima - a meeting the prime minister's office initially refused to allow her to attend.
Abbott and Bishop made the announcement in a joint statement.
"The pledge to the Green Climate Fund will facilitate private sector-led economic growth in the Indo-Pacific region with a particular focus on investment in infrastructure, energy, forestry... and emissions reduction programmes."
The pledge brought an immediate burst of applause at the UN conference.
"We have a strong track record in delivering climate finance," Julie Bishop told the room.
Speaking to reporters in Melbourne, Abbott admitted he had "made various comments some time ago" about the fund but said "as we've seen things develop over the last few months" it was now appropriate for Australia to make "a modest, prudent and proportional commitment" in the interests of being a "good international citizen".
"That money will be strictly invested in practical projects in our region," he said.
Asked about the fund before last year's UN climate meeting in Warsaw, the prime minister said: "We're not going to be making any contributions to that."
It was reported that at one of its first cabinet meetings the Abbott government decided it would make no contributions to the fund.
At the time the prime minister compared it to a domestic fund championed by the former Greens leader Bob Brown, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which Abbott wants to abolish.
He told the Australian: "One thing the current government will never do is say one thing at home and a different thing abroad. We are committed to dismantling the Bob Brown bank at home so it would be impossible for us to support a Bob Brown bank on an international scale."
The government also pointedly dissented from support for the fund in a communique from last November's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting - a stance backed by Canada. Canada also recently announced it would now be contribute to the fund.
The announcement also revealed that the prime minister's department would take over the development of any post-2020 emissions reduction targets that Australia might make before next year's United Nations climate talks in Paris.
It said the review would take into consideration action by the world's developed economies and Australia's major trading partners.
"Any new post-2020 target would be announced in mid-2015 after the taskforce has completed its work," it said.
Campaign groups broadly welcomed the shift in position - but still said that Australia could afford to do more.
"This can only be called a first step and falls short of its fair share," said Kelly Dent, a campaigner for Oxfam Australia. Still, she said: "Australia's pledge, just days after reports that they would not contribute to the fund, is an important message of support and a recognition of the country's responsibility to act."
The Climate Institute think tank welcomed the Australian contribution as "the first step towards fair and proper financial support for poor and vulnerable countries responding to the climate challenge".
It said the amount fell short of the $350m a year the institute believed was a fair contribution from Australia.
"However, the government has an opportunity to demonstrate its total climate finance contribution when it submits its plan to scale up climate finance to the international community early next year.
"As part of this process, the government should outline how this contribution is in addition to the existing activities it is taking through the aid program and other bilateral activities."
The Australian Conservation Foundation said the contribution was welcome, but the money should be in addition to the existing aid budget.
The G20 communique urged countries to make contributions to the fund - although the language was initially resisted by Australia.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
96 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 10, 2014 Wednesday 6:31 AM GMT
Green Climate Fund will get $200m from Australia after Tony Abbott's about-turn;
Prime minister had previously disparaged the international fund designed to help poor countries adapt to climate change, and said Australia would not contribute
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor, and Suzanne Goldenberg in Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 763 words
The federal government has pledged $200m over four years from its existing aid budget to the international Green Climate Fund, which Tony Abbott previously disparaged as a "Bob Brown bank on an international scale".
The announcement represents another reversal by the government. At the time of the G20 meeting last month the prime minister resisted mounting global pressure to commit to the fund, designed to help poor countries adapt to climate change.
He argued Australia was already spending $2.5bn on its domestic Direct Action fund and providing $10bn in capital to a so-called "green bank" - which he is trying to abolish.
The change of position was announced on Tuesday, as foreign minister Julie Bishop prepared to address the United Nations conference on climate change in Lima - a meeting the prime minister's office initially refused to allow her to attend.
Abbott and Bishop made the announcement in a joint statement.
"The pledge to the Green Climate Fund will facilitate private sector-led economic growth in the Indo-Pacific region with a particular focus on investment in infrastructure, energy, forestry... and emissions reduction programmes."
The pledge brought an immediate burst of applause at the UN conference.
"We have a strong track record in delivering climate finance," Julie Bishop told the room.
Speaking to reporters in Melbourne, Abbott admitted he had "made various comments some time ago" about the fund but said "as we've seen things develop over the last few months" it was now appropriate for Australia to make "a modest, prudent and proportional commitment" in the interests of being a "good international citizen".
"That money will be strictly invested in practical projects in our region," he said.
Asked about the fund before last year's UN climate meeting in Warsaw, the prime minister said: "We're not going to be making any contributions to that."
It was reported that at one of its first cabinet meetings the Abbott government decided it would make no contributions to the fund.
At the time the prime minister compared it to a domestic fund championed by the former Greens leader Bob Brown, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which Abbott wants to abolish.
He told the Australian: "One thing the current government will never do is say one thing at home and a different thing abroad. We are committed to dismantling the Bob Brown bank at home so it would be impossible for us to support a Bob Brown bank on an international scale."
The government also pointedly dissented from support for the fund in a communique from last November's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting - a stance backed by Canada. Canada also recently announced it would now be contribute to the fund.
The announcement also revealed that the prime minister's department would take over the development of any post-2020 emissions reduction targets that Australia might make before next year's United Nations climate talks in Paris.
It said the review would take into consideration action by the world's developed economies and Australia's major trading partners.
"Any new post-2020 target would be announced in mid-2015 after the taskforce has completed its work," it said.
Campaign groups broadly welcomed the shift in position - but still said that Australia could afford to do more.
"This can only be called a first step and falls short of its fair share," said Kelly Dent, a campaigner for Oxfam Australia. Still, she said: "Australia's pledge, just days after reports that they would not contribute to the fund, is an important message of support and a recognition of the country's responsibility to act."
The Climate Institute think tank welcomed the Australian contribution as "the first step towards fair and proper financial support for poor and vulnerable countries responding to the climate challenge".
It said the amount fell short of the $350m a year the institute believed was a fair contribution from Australia.
"However, the government has an opportunity to demonstrate its total climate finance contribution when it submits its plan to scale up climate finance to the international community early next year.
"As part of this process, the government should outline how this contribution is in addition to the existing activities it is taking through the aid program and other bilateral activities."
The Australian Conservation Foundation said the contribution was welcome, but the money should be in addition to the existing aid budget.
The G20 communique urged countries to make contributions to the fund - although the language was initially resisted by Australia.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
97 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 10, 2014 Wednesday 5:30 AM GMT
Green measures add £100 a year to energy bills;
It's spent on renewable energy and energy efficiency but most of the £490 increase in an average bill over the last decade has been due to a hike in gas prices
BYLINE: Fiona Harvey
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 576 words
Annual household energy bills have risen by £490 on average in the past decade with most of the increase due to the hike in wholesale gas prices, according to a report from the government's climate change advisers.
This puts the cost of government measures to support low-carbon policies at around £100 a year on domestic bills but the average household is also around £165 better off thanks to those policies - due to people installing new boilers, insulation and more efficient electrical appliances.
Lord Deben, chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, the government's statutory advisers on low-carbon policies, compared the spending on renewable energy and efficiency to an insurance policy against climate change. "We take out insurance on our houses - it makes sense to insure against climate change," he explained.
"Last year, as energy consumers we all helped hundreds of thousands of poorer people to have warmer homes and contributed to real reductions in our emissions in the fight against climate change - all for around £100 a year on the average bill," he said.
Deben argued that the government's main policy on energy efficiency - the Green Deal, by which householders can take out a loan to pay for improvements including insulation and boilers - should be improved to give more people access to these money-saving measures.
The report, called Energy prices and bills: impacts of meeting carbon budgets, found that £55 a year of the average £1,140 household energy bill is spent on subsidising home efficiency improvements, while a further £45 went to renewables and other low-carbon electricity.
Annual bills for consumers are forecast to rise by a further £55 or so by 2020 to pay for further low-carbon investments. For commercial and industrial companies the rise will be much steeper: between 9% and 17% from 2013-20, and a further 12% to 25% by 2030.
"The report lays bare the potential impact of climate change policy on industrial energy prices, estimating that it could add 100% to electricity bills by 2030, which would place serious competitive pressures on heavy industry. It is vital that government starts to take a long term approach to minimising these costs for energy intensive industry," said Gareth Stace, head of climate and environment policy of the EEF manufacturers' organisation.
The committee reported that energy represented a small fraction of costs, at about 0.5% for companies in the commercial sector and 2% for those in industry.
Carbon reductions arising from climate change policies were the equivalent of taking 10m cars off the road, the committee said.
Green campaigners said the report showed that low-carbon measures were good value for money, and reduced the UK's dependence on expensive fossil-fuel imports. Simon Bullock, a senior climate change campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: "There is a clear message for politicians: if they are serious about cutting the cost of punishing energy bills and tackling climate change, making the UK's heat-leaking housing stock energy efficient must rise rapidly up their to-do list."
Nick Molho, executive director of the Aldersgate Group of businesses, which support the move to a low-carbon economy, said: "This report clearly shows that we can meet our carbon targets affordably."
He called for the next government to "show its support for the clean energy sector well beyond the end of this decade", as cutting carbon could generate jobs and economic growth.
LOAD-DATE: December 10, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
98 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 10, 2014 Wednesday 5:30 AM GMT
Green measures add £100 a year to energy bills;
It's spent on renewable energy and energy efficiency but most of the £490 increase in an average bill over the last decade has been due to a hike in gas prices
BYLINE: Fiona Harvey
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 576 words
Annual household energy bills have risen by £490 on average in the past decade with most of the increase due to the hike in wholesale gas prices, according to a report from the government's climate change advisers.
This puts the cost of government measures to support low-carbon policies at around £100 a year on domestic bills but the average household is also around £165 better off thanks to those policies - due to people installing new boilers, insulation and more efficient electrical appliances.
Lord Deben, chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, the government's statutory advisers on low-carbon policies, compared the spending on renewable energy and efficiency to an insurance policy against climate change. "We take out insurance on our houses - it makes sense to insure against climate change," he explained.
"Last year, as energy consumers we all helped hundreds of thousands of poorer people to have warmer homes and contributed to real reductions in our emissions in the fight against climate change - all for around £100 a year on the average bill," he said.
Deben argued that the government's main policy on energy efficiency - the Green Deal, by which householders can take out a loan to pay for improvements including insulation and boilers - should be improved to give more people access to these money-saving measures.
The report, called Energy prices and bills: impacts of meeting carbon budgets, found that £55 a year of the average £1,140 household energy bill is spent on subsidising home efficiency improvements, while a further £45 went to renewables and other low-carbon electricity.
Annual bills for consumers are forecast to rise by a further £55 or so by 2020 to pay for further low-carbon investments. For commercial and industrial companies the rise will be much steeper: between 9% and 17% from 2013-20, and a further 12% to 25% by 2030.
"The report lays bare the potential impact of climate change policy on industrial energy prices, estimating that it could add 100% to electricity bills by 2030, which would place serious competitive pressures on heavy industry. It is vital that government starts to take a long term approach to minimising these costs for energy intensive industry," said Gareth Stace, head of climate and environment policy of the EEF manufacturers' organisation.
The committee reported that energy represented a small fraction of costs, at about 0.5% for companies in the commercial sector and 2% for those in industry.
Carbon reductions arising from climate change policies were the equivalent of taking 10m cars off the road, the committee said.
Green campaigners said the report showed that low-carbon measures were good value for money, and reduced the UK's dependence on expensive fossil-fuel imports. Simon Bullock, a senior climate change campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: "There is a clear message for politicians: if they are serious about cutting the cost of punishing energy bills and tackling climate change, making the UK's heat-leaking housing stock energy efficient must rise rapidly up their to-do list."
Nick Molho, executive director of the Aldersgate Group of businesses, which support the move to a low-carbon economy, said: "This report clearly shows that we can meet our carbon targets affordably."
He called for the next government to "show its support for the clean energy sector well beyond the end of this decade", as cutting carbon could generate jobs and economic growth.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
99 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 10, 2014 Wednesday 5:30 AM GMT
Green measures add £100 a year to energy bills;
It's spent on renewable energy and energy efficiency but most of the £490 increase in an average bill over the last decade has been due to a hike in gas prices
BYLINE: Fiona Harvey
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 576 words
Annual household energy bills have risen by £490 on average in the past decade with most of the increase due to the hike in wholesale gas prices, according to a report from the government's climate change advisers.
This puts the cost of government measures to support low-carbon policies at around £100 a year on domestic bills but the average household is also around £165 better off thanks to those policies - due to people installing new boilers, insulation and more efficient electrical appliances.
Lord Deben, chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, the government's statutory advisers on low-carbon policies, compared the spending on renewable energy and efficiency to an insurance policy against climate change. "We take out insurance on our houses - it makes sense to insure against climate change," he explained.
"Last year, as energy consumers we all helped hundreds of thousands of poorer people to have warmer homes and contributed to real reductions in our emissions in the fight against climate change - all for around £100 a year on the average bill," he said.
Deben argued that the government's main policy on energy efficiency - the Green Deal, by which householders can take out a loan to pay for improvements including insulation and boilers - should be improved to give more people access to these money-saving measures.
The report, called Energy prices and bills: impacts of meeting carbon budgets, found that £55 a year of the average £1,140 household energy bill is spent on subsidising home efficiency improvements, while a further £45 went to renewables and other low-carbon electricity.
Annual bills for consumers are forecast to rise by a further £55 or so by 2020 to pay for further low-carbon investments. For commercial and industrial companies the rise will be much steeper: between 9% and 17% from 2013-20, and a further 12% to 25% by 2030.
"The report lays bare the potential impact of climate change policy on industrial energy prices, estimating that it could add 100% to electricity bills by 2030, which would place serious competitive pressures on heavy industry. It is vital that government starts to take a long term approach to minimising these costs for energy intensive industry," said Gareth Stace, head of climate and environment policy of the EEF manufacturers' organisation.
The committee reported that energy represented a small fraction of costs, at about 0.5% for companies in the commercial sector and 2% for those in industry.
Carbon reductions arising from climate change policies were the equivalent of taking 10m cars off the road, the committee said.
Green campaigners said the report showed that low-carbon measures were good value for money, and reduced the UK's dependence on expensive fossil-fuel imports. Simon Bullock, a senior climate change campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: "There is a clear message for politicians: if they are serious about cutting the cost of punishing energy bills and tackling climate change, making the UK's heat-leaking housing stock energy efficient must rise rapidly up their to-do list."
Nick Molho, executive director of the Aldersgate Group of businesses, which support the move to a low-carbon economy, said: "This report clearly shows that we can meet our carbon targets affordably."
He called for the next government to "show its support for the clean energy sector well beyond the end of this decade", as cutting carbon could generate jobs and economic growth.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
100 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 10, 2014 Wednesday 4:06 AM GMT
How climate change will affect every part of NSW and the ACT;
Hotter, wetter, and worse fire weather: six maps that show how climate change will affect NSW and the ACT
BYLINE: Nick Evershed
SECTION: NEWS
LENGTH: 476 words
Over the weekend the New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory governments released amazingly detailed modelling of how climate change is expected to affect every part of the state.
They've modelled changes in temperature, rainfall, fire weather ( the forest fire danger index, or FFDI ), and the number of hot days and cold nights down to 10km grids, for the year ranges 2020-39 and 2060-79, with midpoints of 2030 and 2070, compared to a baseline of 1990-2009.
The results show one of the most detailed pictures of climate change in NSW that I've seen, with modelling divided into seasonal snapshots as well as annual. Here's a summary of the findings - I'll be looking mostly at the annual, longer term projections for 2070, but you can click through to the link above and explore the results for the early period if you're interested.
It's going to get hotter
Not surprisingly, by 2070 the state will be hotter, with maximum temperatures projected to increase by 1.8 - 2.6 degrees. Areas to the east of the Great Dividing Range will still be cooler, while western parts of the state will generally be hotter.
The number of hot days (days over 35C) will increase significantly for areas in the north-west, with areas near Bourke and Moree particularly affected. The report says that by 2030, parts of the west are projected to experience an average of 12 more days above 35C per year and this will continue to rise to an additional 35 days per year by 2070.
Days with a high fire danger index are likely to increase
This map shows the change in the average number of days that are likely to have a FFDI over 50. The FFDI combines temperature, wind speed, relative humidity and the "drought factor", which represents the effect of recent temperatures and rainfall on fuel availability. It's used to determine those bushfire danger ratings you see on the side of the road.
The west of the state is again affected more than the cooler east.
The mean fire danger index is also projected to increase generally, as well, though again the effect will be felt on the western side of the Great Dividing Range. Seasonally, while there will be slight decreases in the mean FFDI for the more populated areas on the east coast, the mean FFDI is projected to significantly increase in spring. This is consistent with previous research suggesting a lengthening of the fire season into spring.
Some parts of the state are going to get more rain
Northern parts of the state are likely to receive significantly more annual rainfall, with only a smaller southern area from Canberra to the border to receive less rainfall. However, the change in rainfall isn't going to be evenly distributed throughout the year, with many areas receiving less rainfall in spring, and some receiving less in winter:
You can see detailed results for your own area with Adapt NSW's interactive map.
LOAD-DATE: December 10, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
101 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 10, 2014 Wednesday 4:06 AM GMT
How climate change will affect every part of NSW and the ACT;
Hotter, wetter, and worse fire weather: six maps that show how climate change will affect NSW and the ACT
BYLINE: Nick Evershed
SECTION: NEWS
LENGTH: 476 words
Over the weekend the New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory governments released amazingly detailed modelling of how climate change is expected to affect every part of the state.
They've modelled changes in temperature, rainfall, fire weather ( the forest fire danger index, or FFDI ), and the number of hot days and cold nights down to 10km grids, for the year ranges 2020-39 and 2060-79, with midpoints of 2030 and 2070, compared to a baseline of 1990-2009.
The results show one of the most detailed pictures of climate change in NSW that I've seen, with modelling divided into seasonal snapshots as well as annual. Here's a summary of the findings - I'll be looking mostly at the annual, longer term projections for 2070, but you can click through to the link above and explore the results for the early period if you're interested.
It's going to get hotter
Not surprisingly, by 2070 the state will be hotter, with maximum temperatures projected to increase by 1.8 - 2.6 degrees. Areas to the east of the Great Dividing Range will still be cooler, while western parts of the state will generally be hotter.
The number of hot days (days over 35C) will increase significantly for areas in the north-west, with areas near Bourke and Moree particularly affected. The report says that by 2030, parts of the west are projected to experience an average of 12 more days above 35C per year and this will continue to rise to an additional 35 days per year by 2070.
Days with a high fire danger index are likely to increase
This map shows the change in the average number of days that are likely to have a FFDI over 50. The FFDI combines temperature, wind speed, relative humidity and the "drought factor", which represents the effect of recent temperatures and rainfall on fuel availability. It's used to determine those bushfire danger ratings you see on the side of the road.
The west of the state is again affected more than the cooler east.
The mean fire danger index is also projected to increase generally, as well, though again the effect will be felt on the western side of the Great Dividing Range. Seasonally, while there will be slight decreases in the mean FFDI for the more populated areas on the east coast, the mean FFDI is projected to significantly increase in spring. This is consistent with previous research suggesting a lengthening of the fire season into spring.
Some parts of the state are going to get more rain
Northern parts of the state are likely to receive significantly more annual rainfall, with only a smaller southern area from Canberra to the border to receive less rainfall. However, the change in rainfall isn't going to be evenly distributed throughout the year, with many areas receiving less rainfall in spring, and some receiving less in winter:
You can see detailed results for your own area with Adapt NSW's interactive map.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
102 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 10, 2014 Wednesday 4:06 AM GMT
How climate change will affect every part of NSW and the ACT;
Hotter, wetter, and worse fire weather: six maps that show how climate change will affect NSW and the ACT
BYLINE: Nick Evershed
SECTION: NEWS
LENGTH: 476 words
Over the weekend the New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory governments released amazingly detailed modelling of how climate change is expected to affect every part of the state.
They've modelled changes in temperature, rainfall, fire weather ( the forest fire danger index, or FFDI ), and the number of hot days and cold nights down to 10km grids, for the year ranges 2020-39 and 2060-79, with midpoints of 2030 and 2070, compared to a baseline of 1990-2009.
The results show one of the most detailed pictures of climate change in NSW that I've seen, with modelling divided into seasonal snapshots as well as annual. Here's a summary of the findings - I'll be looking mostly at the annual, longer term projections for 2070, but you can click through to the link above and explore the results for the early period if you're interested.
It's going to get hotter
Not surprisingly, by 2070 the state will be hotter, with maximum temperatures projected to increase by 1.8 - 2.6 degrees. Areas to the east of the Great Dividing Range will still be cooler, while western parts of the state will generally be hotter.
The number of hot days (days over 35C) will increase significantly for areas in the north-west, with areas near Bourke and Moree particularly affected. The report says that by 2030, parts of the west are projected to experience an average of 12 more days above 35C per year and this will continue to rise to an additional 35 days per year by 2070.
Days with a high fire danger index are likely to increase
This map shows the change in the average number of days that are likely to have a FFDI over 50. The FFDI combines temperature, wind speed, relative humidity and the "drought factor", which represents the effect of recent temperatures and rainfall on fuel availability. It's used to determine those bushfire danger ratings you see on the side of the road.
The west of the state is again affected more than the cooler east.
The mean fire danger index is also projected to increase generally, as well, though again the effect will be felt on the western side of the Great Dividing Range. Seasonally, while there will be slight decreases in the mean FFDI for the more populated areas on the east coast, the mean FFDI is projected to significantly increase in spring. This is consistent with previous research suggesting a lengthening of the fire season into spring.
Some parts of the state are going to get more rain
Northern parts of the state are likely to receive significantly more annual rainfall, with only a smaller southern area from Canberra to the border to receive less rainfall. However, the change in rainfall isn't going to be evenly distributed throughout the year, with many areas receiving less rainfall in spring, and some receiving less in winter:
You can see detailed results for your own area with Adapt NSW's interactive map.
LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
103 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 10, 2014 Wednesday 12:23 AM GMT
Green Climate Fund will get $200m from Australia after Tony Abbott's about-turn;
Prime minister had previously disparaged the international fund designed to help poor countries adapt to climate change, and said Australia would not contribute
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor, and Suzanne Goldenberg in Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 763 words
The federal government has pledged $200m over four years from its existing aid budget to the international Green Climate Fund, which Tony Abbott previously disparaged as a "Bob Brown bank on an international scale".
The announcement represents another reversal by the government. At the time of the G20 meeting last month the prime minister resisted mounting global pressure to commit to the fund, designed to help poor countries adapt to climate change.
He argued Australia was already spending $2.5bn on its domestic Direct Action fund and providing $10bn in capital to a so-called "green bank" - which he is trying to abolish.
The change of position was announced on Tuesday, as foreign minister Julie Bishop prepared to address the United Nations conference on climate change in Lima - a meeting the prime minister's office initially refused to allow her to attend.
Abbott and Bishop made the announcement in a joint statement.
"The pledge to the Green Climate Fund will facilitate private sector-led economic growth in the Indo-Pacific region with a particular focus on investment in infrastructure, energy, forestry... and emissions reduction programmes."
The pledge brought an immediate burst of applause at the UN conference.
"We have a strong track record in delivering climate finance," Julie Bishop told the room.
Speaking to reporters in Melbourne, Abbott admitted he had "made various comments some time ago" about the fund but said "as we've seen things develop over the last few months" it was now appropriate for Australia to make "a modest, prudent and proportional commitment" in the interests of being a "good international citizen".
"That money will be strictly invested in practical projects in our region," he said.
Asked about the fund before last year's UN climate meeting in Warsaw, the prime minister said: "We're not going to be making any contributions to that."
It was reported that at one of its first cabinet meetings the Abbott government decided it would make no contributions to the fund.
At the time the prime minister compared it to a domestic fund championed by the former Greens leader Bob Brown, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which Abbott wants to abolish.
He told the Australian: "One thing the current government will never do is say one thing at home and a different thing abroad. We are committed to dismantling the Bob Brown bank at home so it would be impossible for us to support a Bob Brown bank on an international scale."
The government also pointedly dissented from support for the fund in a communique from last November's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting - a stance backed by Canada. Canada also recently announced it would now be contribute to the fund.
The announcement also revealed that the prime minister's department would take over the development of any post-2020 emissions reduction targets that Australia might make before next year's United Nations climate talks in Paris.
It said the review would take into consideration action by the world's developed economies and Australia's major trading partners.
"Any new post-2020 target would be announced in mid-2015 after the taskforce has completed its work," it said.
Campaign groups broadly welcomed the shift in position - but still said that Australia could afford to do more.
"This can only be called a first step and falls short of its fair share," said Kelly Dent, a campaigner for Oxfam Australia. Still, she said: "Australia's pledge, just days after reports that they would not contribute to the fund, is an important message of support and a recognition of the country's responsibility to act."
The Climate Institute think tank welcomed the Australian contribution as "the first step towards fair and proper financial support for poor and vulnerable countries responding to the climate challenge".
It said the amount fell short of the $350m a year the institute believed was a fair contribution from Australia.
"However, the government has an opportunity to demonstrate its total climate finance contribution when it submits its plan to scale up climate finance to the international community early next year.
"As part of this process, the government should outline how this contribution is in addition to the existing activities it is taking through the aid program and other bilateral activities."
The Australian Conservation Foundation said the contribution was welcome, but the money should be in addition to the existing aid budget.
The G20 communique urged countries to make contributions to the fund - although the language was initially resisted by Australia.
LOAD-DATE: December 10, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
104 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 10, 2014 Wednesday
Late Edition - Final
With Compromises, a Global Accord to Fight Climate Change Is in Sight
BYLINE: By CORAL DAVENPORT; Edward Wong contributed reporting from Beijing.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 8
LENGTH: 1355 words
LIMA, Peru -- Diplomats from 196 countries are closing in on the framework of a potentially historic deal that would for the first time commit every nation in the world to cutting its planet-warming fossil fuel emissions -- but would still not be enough to stop the early impacts of global warming.
The draft, now circulating among negotiators at a global climate summit meeting here, represents a fundamental breakthrough in the impasse that has plagued the United Nations for two decades as it has tried to forge a new treaty to counter global warming.
But the key to the political success of the draft -- and its main shortcoming, negotiators concede -- is that it does not bind nations to a single, global benchmark for emissions reductions.
Instead, the draft puts forward lower, more achievable, policy goals. Under the terms of the draft, every country will publicly commit to enacting its own plans to reduce emissions -- with governments choosing their own targets, guided by their domestic politics, rather than by the amounts that scientists say are necessary.
The idea is to reach a global deal to be signed by world leaders in Paris next year, incorporating 196 separate emissions pledges.
''It's a breakthrough, because it gives meaning to the idea that every country will make cuts,'' said Yvo de Boer, the former executive secretary of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change.
''But the great hopes for the process are also gone,'' he added. ''Many people are resigned,'' he said, to the likelihood that even a historic new deal would not reduce greenhouse gas levels enough to keep the planet's atmospheric temperature from rising 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
That is the point at which, scientists say, it will become impossible to avoid the dangerous and costly early effects of climate change -- such as melting glaciers, rising sea levels, extreme drought, food shortages and more violent storms.
The Lima draft represents the input of all the negotiating countries, though there are still several major hurdles to work out. But even then, experts say, at best the new deal might be enough only to curb global warming by about half as much as scientists say is necessary.
Until recently, the United States and China, the world's two largest greenhouse gas polluters, have been at the center of the impasse over a climate deal.
Until this year, the United States had never arrived at the United Nations' annual climate negotiations with a domestic policy to cut its own carbon emissions. Instead, it merely demanded that other nations cut their use of coal and gasoline, while promising that it would do so in the future.
China, meanwhile, was the lead voice among nations demanding that developing economies should not be required to commit to any cuts.
But in November, President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China announced plans to reduce emissions, helping inject new life into the global climate talks.
Negotiators here call the joint announcement between China and the United States the catalyst for the new draft, which, if approved at the climate summit meeting this week, would set the stage for a final deal to be signed by world leaders next year in Paris.
In the United Nations' first effort to enact a climate change treaty, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the legally binding language of the agreement prescribed that the world's largest economies make ambitious, specific emissions cuts -- but it exempted developing nations. The United States Senate refused to ratify the treaty, effectively leaving it a failure.
The Lima draft does not include Kyoto-style, top-down mandates that countries cut emissions by specific levels. Instead, it includes provisions requiring that all nations, rich and poor, commit to policies to mitigate their emissions. Countries that sign on to the deal will commit to announcing, by March, detailed, hard-numbers plans laying out how they will cut emissions after 2020.
The draft that emerges this week ''will look like a game of Mad Libs,'' said one negotiator who was not authorized to speak publicly. Over the coming months, as countries put forth their emissions reduction pledges, the details of the final deal will be filled in.
It is expected that many countries will miss that March deadline. Officials from India and other countries have said that they are unlikely to present a plan before June.
In order to ensure that all countries are included in the deal, late announcers will get a pass. The point, United Nations officials say, is to ensure that the information exists to finalize a Paris deal by December 2015.
Negotiators concede that the ''each according to their abilities'' approach is less than perfect -- but that it represents what is achievable.
''The reality of it is that nobody was able to come up with a different way of going about it that would actually get countries to participate and be in the agreement,'' said Todd D. Stern, the lead American climate change negotiator. ''You could write a paper, in theory, assigning a certain amount of emissions cuts to every country. That would get the reduction you need. But you wouldn't get an agreement. We live in the real world. It's not going to be perfect.''
And there are still many hurdles ahead.
While many major developing economies are now expected to follow China's lead in preparing emissions plans, some countries remain wild cards. This year, the government of Australia repealed a landmark climate change law that taxed carbon pollution. Since then, its emissions have soared.
''Australia is left without any viable policy to cut emissions,'' said Senator Christine Milne, the leader of the Australian opposition Green Party. ''It's going to drag its heels.''
Money, as always, is a sticking point.
The increasing likelihood that the planet's atmosphere will warm past the 3.6 degree threshold, with or without a deal in Paris, is driving demands by vulnerable nations -- particularly island states and African countries -- that the industrialized world open up its wallet to pay for the damage incurred by its fossil fuel consumption. Under the terms of a 2009 climate change accord reached in Copenhagen, rich countries have agreed to mobilize $100 billion annually by 2020 to help poor countries adapt to the ravages of climate change. But a report this month by the United Nations Environmental Program estimates that the cost to poor countries of adapting to climate change could rise to as high as $300 billion annually -- and vulnerable countries are stepping up their demands that more money be included in any final deal. Many vulnerable and developing countries insist that each country's national pledge include not just a plan to cut emissions, but also money for adaptation.
''The financing question will be one of the deepest divides,'' said Jennifer Morgan, an expert in climate change negotiations with the World Resources Institute, a research organization.
Another element to be hashed out by negotiators will be devising an international number-crunching system to monitor, verify and compare countries' pledged emissions cuts.
China has always balked at any outside monitoring of its major economic sectors, and is pushing back on proposals for rigorous outside scrutiny.
Hong Lei, a spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that his country ''always supports increasing transparency'' but that the new reporting system should reflect ''the reality that developing countries' basic capacities in areas like national statistics and assessment are still insufficient.'' He added that ''developed countries should provide appropriate support to developing countries.''
The United States has urged that a final deal not take the form of a legally binding treaty requiring Senate ratification, hoping to avoid a repeat of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol experience.
But many countries continue to press for a legally binding deal.
French officials have already given the yet-to-be-signed deal a working title: the ''Paris Alliance.''
The name, they say, is meant to signify that many different economies are working together, rather than complying with a single, top-down mandate.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/world/with-compromises-a-global-accord-to-fight-climate-change-is-in-sight.html
LOAD-DATE: December 10, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: A coal-burning power plant in Gelsenkirchen, Germany. Officials meeting in Peru are working on a pact to curb global warming. (PHOTOGRAPH BY MARTIN MEISSNER/ASSOCIATED PRESS)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
105 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 10, 2014 Wednesday
Late Edition - Final
In Latin America, Growth Trumps Climate
BYLINE: By EDUARDO PORTER
SECTION: Section B; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; ECONOMIC SCENE; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1324 words
SANTIAGO, Chile -- Eco-warriors on the front lines of climate diplomacy often frame the environmental conflict between the developed and the developing world as a version of the notorious skirmish between Lawrence H. Summers and José Lutzenberger, which happened on the sidelines of the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, widely seen as the official start of the world's interest in climate change.
Mr. Summers, then chief economist of the World Bank, had lent his signature to a leaked memo making the case that poor countries would make an efficient dump for the trash of the rich.
''The economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that,'' the memo argued. Mr. Lutzenberger, an iconoclastic agronomist who was then Brazil's environmental minister, responded that Mr. Summers's reasoning ''is perfectly logical but totally insane.''
It can be tempting to understand the greenhouse gas negotiations this week in Lima, Peru, in the same light: a clash between developing countries fighting to preserve their vulnerable environments from the rich representatives of multinational capitalism who want to exploit them.
But the brawl between the American economist and the Brazilian environmentalist is the wrong historical precedent.
Particularly these days, Brazil doesn't want its environment protected from development. Stunned by an abrupt slowdown in economic growth over the last three years, it urgently wants its environment exploited, whether this means offering cheaper gas to encourage driving or investing trillions in developing its oil reserves.
''There is a strategic vision in Brazil that it must close the gap that still separates it from rich, developed countries,'' said Sérgio Leitão, head of public policy for Greenpeace in São Paulo. ''To do that it must burn its natural capital, which is what Americans and Europeans did.''
Indeed, the relevant precedent happened two decades before the Rio Summit, in 1972, when the United Nations organized its first-ever environmental summit meeting in Sweden.
In the midst of what was called its ''economic miracle,'' Brazil was that year inaugurating the Trans-Amazonian highway. It was planning a mega-dam on the Paraná River at Itaipú and building a nuclear power plant at Angra dos Reis. Brazil not only saw no purpose in protecting its indigenous forests -- it even offered tax incentives to replace them with lucrative Caribbean pine and eucalyptus.
Pollution meant progress. Brazil wouldn't be hoodwinked by conservation proposals that just aimed to keep it in poverty. In Stockholm, João Paulo dos Reis Veloso, the representative of Brazil's military government, invited investors from around the world to ''Come pollute Brazil!''
Grudgingly, perhaps, rich countries have accepted the notion that poorer countries that emit much less CO2 should be given a break to cut emissions more slowly -- or in some cases not at all -- and should be provided with cash and technology to help them limit their carbon footprint.
Yet as calls for substantial and immediate emissions cuts have grown more intense, environmental advocates and allied policy makers seem to be losing sight of developing countries' nonnegotiable constraint: They will not agree to grow less.
The tension between climate and development crops up all over Latin America. Chile, poor in fossil fuels and rich in wind and sun, might seem like a natural base for a low-carbon economy.
Yet Aldo Cerda, who heads corporate affairs at the country's budding climate exchange, says the intensity of Chile's carbon use is set to grow significantly over the next 15 years.
The tension is also evident in Peru, host of the climate change talks, where the government watered down environmental regulations over the summer to try to pump up flagging growth.
''Peru is still a work in progress,'' said Joe Keenan, who heads the Nature Conservancy in Latin America. ''Some people in the government are trying to put together a forest protection plan. But there are also plans to put new highways into the Amazon.''
Resolving this tension is proving difficult, at best. Take the report issued this year by the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network. It worked on the assumption that every country would cut annual carbon emissions from energy to only 1.6 tons per person by 2050.
Brazil, where emissions from energy rose to almost 2.4 tons per person last year, is unlikely to agree to that anytime soon.
''Brazilians are very far from understanding that the climate question is an obstacle that slows Brazil's exploitation of natural resources,'' Mr. Leitão, the Greenpeace representative, told me. ''On the contrary, Brazil believes that it still has the right to some quota of increased emissions.''
In a 2012 study, Elizabeth A. Stanton, an environmental economist at Synapse Energy Economics, noted that projections by the International Energy Agency, on which leading climate models are based, assume that the least developed countries will fail to close the prosperity gap with the rich of the world.
Income per person in the world's poorest countries -- about one-27th of that of people in the rich world -- would inch ahead to one-20th in the year 2105.
''This assumption -- that economic development will fail in the poorest countries -- results in lower business-as-usual global emissions, allowing emissions reduction targets to be less stringent in richer countries,'' she wrote. ''What if low-income countries experience genuine economic development?''
The world's poorest countries may well fail to overcome their misery. Still, the development imperative will beat the climate imperative every time.
Brazil, by some accounts, is the fourth largest contributor to climate change after the United States, China and Russia. At the Copenhagen climate summit meeting in 2009, it promised deep cuts to CO2 and, until recently, it was well on track to deliver.
Deforestation in the Amazon -- the country's main contribution to climate change -- slowed sharply. Even as mineral and agricultural exports powered an economic boom that brought almost 25 million Brazilians out of poverty, greenhouse gas emissions fell by almost half from 2004 to 2012.
But when Brazil's fast-paced economy got stuck last year, concerns about the environment dropped down the priority list.
A tax on gasoline was slashed in hopes of priming the economic pump, a decision that removed ethanol's competitive advantage. A slump in hydroelectric power generation caused by a persistent drought was met by a sustained investment in gas and coal.
And greenhouse gas emissions rose by nearly 8 percent in 2013 compared to the year before.
''Until 2010 we had both high growth and falling emissions,'' noted Tasso Azevedo, former director of the Environment Ministry's National Forest Program and one of the lead designers of Brazil's plan to combat deforestation. ''Today Brazil is in the worst of worlds, emitting more and generating less growth.''
There is evidence that the tension between economic development and climate change is not inevitable. Maybe greenhouse gas emissions can be limited at little or no economic cost.
Brazil, experts argue, could stop deforestation entirely. ''We could double grain production to 350 million tons without felling any more forest,'' said Eduardo Assad of the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation. And Brazil's large ethanol industry still shows enormous promise.
But how and when Brazil and other developing countries commit to a low-carbon path will always depend on whether there is enough growth to keep living standards on the rise.
''We have so many tools to turn things around,'' Mr. Assad said.
The question is whether they will draw the needed investment. ''This could be solved quickly if we can turn around the economic slowdown,'' he said, ''but if we can't overcome the stagnant economy, it's going to be at a turtle's pace.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/business/in-latin-america-growth-trumps-climate.html
LOAD-DATE: December 10, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: Schoolchildren on a beach near an oil platform in Brazil. As the country's economy has stalled, so have its efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. (PHOTOGRAPH BY MARIO TAMA/GETTY IMAGES) (B1)
Cattle on a tract of illegally cleared rain forest in Brazil. The country had been making significant progress in stopping deforestation before an economic slowdown. (PHOTOGRAPH BY LALO de ALMEIDA FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES) (B8) CHARTS: Battling Climate Change: Greenhouse gas emissions from Brazil, the fourth largest contributor in the world, have fallen sharply over the last decade. But progress has stalled, as slow economic growth has changed Brazil's priorities.
Top 10 contributors to global temperature change: The temperature increase that each country is responsible for, measured in fractions of a Celsius degree (Sources: Brazilian Climate Observatory (Observatorio do Clima)
H. Damon Matthews et. al.) (B8)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
106 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 9, 2014 Tuesday 11:59 PM GMT
Green Climate Fund will get $200m from Australia after Tony Abbott's about-turn;
Prime minister had previously disparaged the international fund designed to help poor countries adapt to climate change, and said Australia would not contribute
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 664 words
The federal government has pledged $200m over four years from its existing aid budget to the international Green Climate Fund, which Tony Abbott previously disparaged as a "Bob Brown bank on an international scale".
The announcement represents another reversal by the government. At the time of the G20 meeting last month the prime minister resisted mounting global pressure to commit to the fund, designed to help poor countries adapt to climate change.
He argued Australia was already spending $2.5bn on its domestic Direct Action fund and providing $10bn in capital to a so-called "green bank" - which he is trying to abolish.
The change of position was announced on Tuesday, as foreign minister Julie Bishop prepared to address the United Nations conference on climate change in Lima - a meeting the prime minister's office initially refused to allow her to attend.
Abbott and Bishop made the announcement in a joint statement.
"The pledge to the Green Climate Fund will facilitate private sector-led economic growth in the Indo-Pacific region with a particular focus on investment in infrastructure, energy, forestry... and emissions reduction programmes."
Speaking to reporters in Melbourne, Abbott admitted he had "made various comments some time ago" about the fund but said "as we've seen things develop over the last few months" it was now appropriate for Australia to make "a modest, prudent and proportional commitment" in the interests of being a "good international citizen".
"That money will be strictly invested in practical projects in our region," he said.
Asked about the fund before last year's UN climate meeting in Warsaw, the prime minister said: "We're not going to be making any contributions to that."
It was reported that at one of its first cabinet meetings the Abbott government decided it would make no contributions to the fund.
At the time the prime minister compared it to a domestic fund championed by the former Greens leader Bob Brown, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which Abbott wants to abolish.
He told the Australian: "One thing the current government will never do is say one thing at home and a different thing abroad. We are committed to dismantling the Bob Brown bank at home so it would be impossible for us to support a Bob Brown bank on an international scale."
The government also pointedly dissented from support for the fund in a communique from last November's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting - a stance backed by Canada. Canada also recently announced it would now be contribute to the fund.
The announcement also revealed that the prime minister's department would take over the development of any post-2020 emissions reduction targets that Australia might make before next year's United Nations climate talks in Paris.
It said the review would take into consideration action by the world's developed economies and Australia's major trading partners.
"Any new post-2020 target would be announced in mid-2015 after the taskforce has completed its work," it said.
The Climate Institute think tank welcomed the Australian contribution as "the first step towards fair and proper financial support for poor and vulnerable countries responding to the climate challenge".
It said the amount fell short of the $350m a year the institute believed was a fair contribution from Australia.
"However, the government has an opportunity to demonstrate its total climate finance contribution when it submits its plan to scale up climate finance to the international community early next year.
"As part of this process, the government should outline how this contribution is in addition to the existing activities it is taking through the aid program and other bilateral activities."
The Australian Conservation Foundation said the contribution was welcome, but the money should be in addition to the existing aid budget.
The G20 communique urged countries to make contributions to the fund - although the language was initially resisted by Australia.
LOAD-DATE: December 9, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
107 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 9, 2014 Tuesday 11:13 PM GMT
Tories 'must explain' why they stopped minister attending Lima climate talks;
Lib Dem MP Ed Davey says Amber Rudd 'disappointed' by Michael Gove's decision to make her stay for counter-terror vote
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg in Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 544 words
The Conservatives will have to answer for the decision to bar the climate change minister from attending critical climate talks in Lima this week so she could stay in the UK to vote on counter-terror measures, the energy and climate change secretary, Ed Davey, said on Tuesday.
Amber Rudd had planned on making a high profile appearance at Lima, fitting in a visit to a melting glacier in the Andes in an apparent reference to Margaret Thatcher's climate change speeches, before sitting in on the climate change negotiations taking place at a military compound in Lima.
But in a last-minute change Davey flew out on his own on Monday, after Michael Gove apparently decided Rudd's presence was required. "I know Amber was disappointed and Mr Gove will no doubt want to explain to his colleagues why he thought it was important for her to remain in Westminster," Davey told reporters.
The government is facing votes on the counter-terrorism bill this week but there was no obvious sign it would face defeat without Rudd's attendance in the Commons.
This week's talks are seen as a crunch time for putting the necessary elements in place for a global climate change deal in Paris next year.
The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-Moon, opening up the final "high-level" phase of this week's talks on Tuesday, said it was time for countries to take the sweeping actions needed to fight climate change. "This is not a time for tinkering. It is a time for transformation," he said.
In an important symbolic step towards reaching an agreement, contributions to the Green Climate Fund, set up to help developing countries fight climate change, reached their $10bn target on Tuesday, with a 50m Euro contribution from Belgium. But much of the atmosphere in Lima depends on appearances and signals.
Barack Obama is expected to demonstrate his commitment to a climate change deal by sending the secretary of state, John Kerry, later in the week.
Davey said Rudd would be missed at the talks. "She is an excellent climate change minister. She was due to go and see the problems caused by climate change to a glacier here in Peru," he said. "Her trip would have helped illustrate why we are all here and why we are taking climate change so seriously."
But Davey rejected out of hand the suggestion that Rudd's absence would send a signal the UK was less than serious about the Lima talks, or wavering in its commitment to reaching a successful agreement at Paris.
A Liberal Democrat source told the Guardian at the time: "We're a year away from what we hope will be a historic global deal to tackle climate change, and these talks are aimed at putting the building blocks in place. The Tories are showing their true colours, and they're not green."
Rudd's appointment six months ago as climate change minister met relief from campaigners and green businesses that David Cameron, had not appointed a climate sceptic.
Unlike the controversial record of Owen Paterson as environment minister, Rudd was seen as committed to UK leadership on climate action. In an interview earlier this year with Business Green, Rudd said: "I don't think you could get a cigarette paper between me and Labour on our commitment to getting a deal in Paris. We are all completely committed to it, whatever the outcome."
LOAD-DATE: December 9, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
108 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 9, 2014 Tuesday 8:35 PM GMT
Tories must explain why they stopped minister attending Lima climate talks;
Lib Dem MP Ed Davey says Amber Rudd 'disappointed' by Michael Gove's decision to make her stay for counter-terror vote
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg in Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 544 words
The Conservatives will have to answer for the decision to bar the climate change minister from attending critical climate talks in Lima this week so she could stay in the UK to vote on counter-terror measures, the energy and climate change secretary, Ed Davey, said on Tuesday.
Amber Rudd had planned on making a high profile appearance at Lima, fitting in a visit to a melting glacier in the Andes in an apparent reference to Margaret Thatcher's climate change speeches, before sitting in on the climate change negotiations taking place at a military compound in Lima.
But in a last-minute change Davey flew out on his own on Monday, after Michael Gove apparently decided Rudd's presence was required. "I know Amber was disappointed and Mr Gove will no doubt want to explain to his colleagues why he thought it was important for her to remain in Westminster," Davey told reporters.
The government is facing votes on the counter-terrorism bill this week but there was no obvious sign it would face defeat without Rudd's attendance in the Commons.
This week's talks are seen as a crunch time for putting the necessary elements in place for a global climate change deal in Paris next year.
The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-Moon, opening up the final "high-level" phase of this week's talks on Tuesday, said it was time for countries to take the sweeping actions needed to fight climate change. "This is not a time for tinkering. It is a time for transformation," he said.
In an important symbolic step towards reaching an agreement, contributions to the Green Climate Fund, set up to help developing countries fight climate change, reached their $10bn target on Tuesday, with a 50m Euro contribution from Belgium. But much of the atmosphere in Lima depends on appearances and signals.
Barack Obama is expected to demonstrate his commitment to a climate change deal by sending the secretary of state, John Kerry, later in the week.
Davey said Rudd would be missed at the talks. "She is an excellent climate change minister. She was due to go and see the problems caused by climate change to a glacier here in Peru," he said. "Her trip would have helped illustrate why we are all here and why we are taking climate change so seriously."
But Davey rejected out of hand the suggestion that Rudd's absence would send a signal the UK was less than serious about the Lima talks, or wavering in its commitment to reaching a successful agreement at Paris.
A Liberal Democrat source told the Guardian at the time: "We're a year away from what we hope will be a historic global deal to tackle climate change, and these talks are aimed at putting the building blocks in place. The Tories are showing their true colours, and they're not green."
Rudd's appointment six months ago as climate change minister met relief from campaigners and green businesses that David Cameron, had not appointed a climate sceptic.
Unlike the controversial record of Owen Paterson as environment minister, Rudd was seen as committed to UK leadership on climate action. In an interview earlier this year with Business Green, Rudd said: "I don't think you could get a cigarette paper between me and Labour on our commitment to getting a deal in Paris. We are all completely committed to it, whatever the outcome."
LOAD-DATE: December 9, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
109 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 9, 2014 Tuesday 2:05 AM GMT
Julie Bishop steps up lobbying to stop Great Barrier Reef being listed 'in danger';
Australian foreign minister to use Lima climate talks to warn other nations that downgrading the reef's world heritage status would set a 'dangerous precedent'
BYLINE: Oliver Milman
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 833 words
Julie Bishop has intensified diplomatic efforts to avoid the Great Barrier Reef being deemed "in danger", claiming any listing would set a "very dangerous precedent" that would affect other heritage sites around the world.
Bishop, who arrived in Lima for climate change talks on Tuesday, will use the trip to escalate Australia's lobbying of other nations to avert the Great Barrier Reef being downgraded by Unesco's world heritage committee next year.
The committee, comprised of experts from 20 countries, will decide whether the reef, which has lost half its coral cover in the past 30 years, should be listed as "in danger".
Bishop said there is "no justification" for this to happen, warning it would have negative international ramifications.
"It would send a message around the world that even if you meet all of the criteria set out by the world heritage committee, there is still a risk that they will place an area on the in-danger list," she told the Courier Mail.
"It would have significant implications for Australia but it would also set a very dangerous precedent for countries who don't have the opportunity to take the action that Australia has."
Referencing the sustained campaign by green groups to highlight the declining state of the reef, Bishop added: "Every country that has an environmental icon that activists seize upon would be at risk."
At a meeting of the world heritage committee earlier this year, delegates "noted with concern" a plan to dump five million tonnes of dredged material within the reef's world heritage area. That plan has now been reversed, with a new proposal to place the sediment on nearby wetlands.
Unesco has also questioned port expansions beside the reef, as well as water quality. The Australian government has said it is properly managing both of these issues.
The reef faces many other pressures, however, with a recent Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) report warning : "The overall outlook for the Great Barrier Reef is poor, has worsened since 2009 and is expected to further deteriorate in the future.
"Greater reductions of all threats at all levels, reef-wide, regional and local, are required to prevent the projected declines in the Great Barrier Reef and to improve its capacity to recover."
The GBRMPA, the government's reef agency, said climate change was the leading threat to the coral ecosystem, with pollution and a plague of coral-eating starfish also contributing to its deterioration.
The government has put together a long-term plan, called Reef 2050, to protect the reef, although the Australian Academy of Science has criticised it for being inadequate to prevent further decline.
Jon Day, who was director of heritage conservation at GBRMPA until July, said Bishop was mistaken in her analysis of the reef's condition.
"What it comes down to is whether the reef's values are being lost and the government's own report shows that they are being lost," Day, who was at GBRMPA for 28 years, told Guardian Australia. "In the government's strategic report, over half of the reef's 41 outstanding values are showing a deteriorating trend and that is what the committee will address.
"The GBRMPA's report mentions climate change as the number one issue and yet the long-term plan mentions very little about climate change. The Australian government clearly sees an in-danger listing as embarrassing. We don't just need business as usual here, we need to go beyond that in order to protect the reef."
Day said a commitment from Greg Hunt, the environment minister, to ban the dumping of newly dredged spoil was a "furphy" because it relates to the reef's marine park, not its larger world heritage area that includes port zones.
Terry Hughes, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, said Bishop was guilty of "wishful thinking" over the reef's condition.
"Her claims are contradicted by her own government's reports, which couldn't be more clear that the reef is deteriorating," he told Guardian Australia.
"On one hand the commonwealth government is saying the reef is in poor condition and getting worse and on the other they are saying it's the best-managed coral ecosystem in the world. Well, clearly it isn't."
The government's lobbying efforts over the reef have gone on for several months, with Hunt and Andrew Powell, the Queensland environment minister, reportedly travelling to Europe to explain why the in-danger listing should be avoided.
Unesco chief Irina Bokova told Guardian Australia last month that Australia had started to address concerns over the reef's health.
Dermot O'Gorman, chief executive of WWF, said: "We're concerned that rather than redoubling efforts to save the Great Barrier Reef, the government is redoubling efforts to use diplomatic muscle to feed into the world heritage process.
"We have been communicating the message, from scientists, that the reef is under threat. Rather than blame green groups for talking it down, there should be a focus on how to turn it around."
LOAD-DATE: December 9, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
110 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 9, 2014 Tuesday 1:18 AM GMT
Goal to end fossil fuels by 2050 surfaces in Lima UN climate documents;
Campaigners in Lima are eyeing an 'inevitable' end to the fossil fuel industry by mid-century
BYLINE: Graham Readfearn Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 920 words
It's a rare thing when you can point to paragraphs in a United Nations climate negotiating text and feel they more or less match what most of the science says should become a reality.
Yet in Lima on Monday, it happened.
Our little revolutionary moment comes in a document with the memorable title "ADP 2-7 agenda item 3 Elements for a draft negotiating text" with its climate-busting section D (paragraph 13.2) outlining several possible long-term goals for a new climate change agreement.
Here's a taster from the document, as it was at 6.30am in Lima, on 8 December 2014.
Parties' efforts to take the form of: a. A long-term zero emissions sustainable development pathway: Consistent with emissions peaking for developed countries in 2015, with an aim of zero net emissions by 2050; in the context of equitable access to sustainable development ... Consistent with carbon neutrality/net zero emissions by 2050, or full decarbonization by 2050 and/or negative emissions by 2100;....
In this context "Parties" refers to countries which are signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Here in Lima, we are at a "Conference of the Parties" or COP.
The document in question is what's known as a negotiating text, and in this case it contains a whole grab bag of aspirational long-term goals.
Those I've picked out are just a few of the more ambitious ones. I understand these were pushed into the document by countries, including Norway, the Marshall Islands, Sweden and a grouping of countries consisting of Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Peru and Panama.
It is a very early version of what, over the course of the next 12 months, will morph into a new global deal to be signed in Paris.
While a year seems like a long time, it's not in the world of UN climate talks.
As one Australian observer pointed out, there are only six weeks of negotiating time on the UN's schedule between now and Paris.
But if language such as "full decarbonization by 2050" were to become a reality, it basically defines an end point for the fossil fuel energy industry as we know it.
During a media briefing, I asked Ruth Davis, of Greenpeace UK, how likely it was that a decarbonisation goal could survive.
I think we have to say to ourselves that the chances of this stuff staying in the text are down to all of our collective efforts in demanding that this stays in the text. This is not only civil society but also progressive businesses who have to make their voices heard in keeping this in the text. The chances of this stuff surviving are dependent on the efforts that we collectively make to influence politicians to do the right thing.
What is in this "elements" document isn't likely to be challenged or negotiated this week - that will be thrashed out next year.
As veteran climate negotiations watcher Alden Meyer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, explained:
This text won't be settled here. It is an options text that then needs to be translated into a legal text and it won't be decided until the last night at Paris. So which long-term goal survives the end of the day we won't know until a year from now. But there was incredible political momentum coming out of the climate summit in New York where about 60 national leaders endorsed the need for a long-term goal as part of the Paris agreement and that number is continuing to grow. We have more and more businesses, faith groups and unions speaking out - there is a momentum building around this and I think by Paris next year the chances of a strong goal staying in the agreement are probably much greater than they are right now.
In an early evening briefing, climate scientist Dr Malte Meinshausen explained the 2050 decarbonisation date was derived from statements in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports.
He said that from 2011, the world could afford to emit no more than 1000bn tonnes (Gt) of CO2 to have a good chance of staying below 2C of global warming (some poorer countries and low-lying states say the aim should be 1.5C). Meinshausen said:
At current rates we churn through 33Gt a year - 1000Gt divided by 33 means we have about 30 years left from 2011 onwards. Then the carbon budget will be exhausted.
At some point emissions have to go to zero, no matter what. There is no way around zero CO2 emissions. As long as we continue to emit CO2, the climate will continue to warm.
Not only does the decarbonisation proposal broadly match the kind of efforts climate change scientists say would be needed to avoid dangerous climate change, it also matches the level of ambition climate campaigners have been asking for.
The campaign group AVAAZ has a petition with more than two million signatories that also asks for decarbonisation by 2050.
The campaign director of Avaaz, Iain Keith, told me:
This isn't a target that's been dreamt up in Lima. All over the world, millions of people have backed the call for 100% clean energy, with grassroots campaigns rolling out in towns and cities everywhere to get emissions to zero. The world is waking up to the fact that a renewables revolution isn't just possible, it's inevitable.
The options on the table for world leaders seem simpler in the context of a long-term goal such as decarbonisation by 2050.
Either the goal survives or the world moves to a riskier and more dangerous future.
Whether or not some countries want to be responsible for facilitating that risk by killing a long-term goal to decarbonise, only time and many more late-night negotiations will tell.
LOAD-DATE: December 9, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
111 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 9, 2014 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
Philippines Pushes Developing Countries to Cut Their Emissions
BYLINE: By CORAL DAVENPORT
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 8
LENGTH: 1061 words
LIMA, Peru -- As the torrential rains of Typhoon Hagupit flood the Philippines, driving millions of people from their homes, the Philippine government arrived at a United Nations climate change summit meeting on Monday to push hard for a new international deal requiring all nations, including developing countries, to cut their use of fossil fuels.
It is a conscious pivot for the Philippines, one of Asia's fastest-growing economies. But scientists say the nation is also among the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, and the Philippine government says it is suffering too many human and economic losses from the burning of fossil fuels.
Previously, Philippine negotiators -- most notably, climate diplomat Naderev Saño, who shot to fame last year after staging a hunger strike in the wake of the deadly Typhoon Haiyan -- have not been shy about demanding that the industrialized world cut its carbon emissions.
But now, the negotiators say, the Philippines is pledging cuts of its own and urging other developing nations to follow suit, a significant shift that they hope will advance global negotiations.
Negotiators here in Peru are working this week on a climate change accord, with the aim of producing one that will be signed by world leaders next year in Paris.
''The thinking of the pivot is -- we're going to take on commitments and do our part,'' said Tony La Viña, a Philippine climate change delegate. ''The call has always been for developed countries to act. But the thinking is simple. If we're going to get hit every year again and again, how can we call on developed countries to reduce their emissions, but not reduce our own?''
The move follows a joint announcement in November by the United States and China that both countries -- the world's two largest carbon polluters -- will commit to reducing their fossil fuel emissions in the coming years.
Climate negotiators had hoped that the announcement by China would help end an impasse that, for 20 years, has plagued efforts to forge a global deal to stop climate change: Developing economies insist that industrialized nations -- as the world's historic polluters -- greatly reduce emissions, while poor countries remain exempt from such requirements.
The announcement by the Philippines ''builds on the dramatic U.S.-China announcement two weeks ago,'' said Robert N. Stavins, director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. ''It shows that there can be a deal in which emerging economies and countries on the growth path from developed to developing are now willing to negotiate.''
In particular, negotiators have hoped that the American deal with China would spur action from India, the world's third-largest carbon polluter. But more broadly, climate negotiators hope to bring every nation in the world to the table to pledge cuts, regardless of the size of economy.
In a clear sign of the shift by the Philippines, delegates from the country said they were breaking away from an informal bloc of nations known as the ''Like-Minded Group,'' which has for the past two years negotiated together on climate treaties.
The group includes nations like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Venezuela and other petro-states, which have long been viewed as stalling the push for an ambitious global deal designed to lower global oil consumption.
Instead, the Philippines assumed the chairmanship of another negotiating bloc -- the ''Most Vulnerable Countries.''
''The Philippines is thrilled with this opportunity to play a central role in stepping up the joint efforts for vulnerable countries,'' said Mary Ann Lucille Sering, secretary of the Philippines climate change commission.
''We have sustained losses every year since 2008 of 5 percent of GDP,'' she said. ''We are experiencing tremendous damages and loss of life from typhoons.''
Climate change policy experts applauded the country's new move but suggested that it could prompt an exodus of other countries from the ''Like-Minded Group.''
''They're playing a new role,'' said Jennifer Morgan, an expert on climate change negotiations with the World Resources Institute, a research group. ''It will be interesting to see if other countries, vulnerable countries, pull out of that group.''
The switch came as Typhoon Hagupit -- translated in English as ''Lasher'' -- churned through the nation. A series of scientific reports have linked the burning of fossil fuels with rising sea levels and more powerful typhoons, like those that have battered the island nation.
''How many more lashings can we bear?'' Ms. Sering asked.
But even as the Philippine delegation announced its new stance, many noticed the absence of Mr. Saño, who had become the face of the country's climate efforts.
Last year, weeks after super typhoon Haiyan left thousands dead in its wake, Mr. Saño gave an impassioned, weeping speech that electrified the annual United Nations climate change summit meeting, demanding that the world wake up to the impact of fossil fuels on his homeland.
Over the next year, he gained world attention as an advocate for his cause, staging a hunger strike, giving speeches to thousands and taking part in a 38-day climate awareness march from Manila to his flattened hometown Tacloban.
Mr. Saño's tactics were widely credited with raising awareness of climate change inside a government with economic ties to some of the world's biggest oil producers. But they did not necessarily translate to good negotiating practices, his colleagues said. This year, the government did not include Mr. Saño in the official negotiating team. He is in Manila, helping victims of the typhoon.
Mr. La Viña, the Philippine negotiator who was also Mr. Saño's law professor at the University of the Philippines, said he admired his former student's passion. But Mr. La Viña questioned the efficacy of tearful, angry demands that rich countries make ''climate justice'' amends to poor countries.
''Everyone's heard that,'' he said.
Such an approach, while it may be morally justified, does not play well at the negotiating table, Mr. La Viña said. That is why the Philippine delegation this year is not spotlighting its prominent activist, but rather the fact that it intends to put forward a plan to reduce its own emissions.
''If you change the conversation to what you can do, you get listened to more,'' Mr. La Viña said.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/world/americas/philippines-pushes-developing-countries-to-cut-their-emissions-.html
LOAD-DATE: December 9, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Burning debris from Typhoon Hagupit in the Philippines. At a United Nations summit meeting, officials from the nation, which scientists say is among the most vulnerable to climate change, are pressing every nation to reduce their use of fossil fuels. (PHOTOGRAPH BY FRANCIS R. MALASIG/EUROPEAN PRESSPHOTO AGENCY)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
112 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 9, 2014 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
California Drought Is Said to Have Natural Cause
BYLINE: By HENRY FOUNTAIN
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 21
LENGTH: 336 words
Scientists who have analyzed California's extreme drought have concluded that it is a result of natural climate variability over the past three years and that climate change caused by humans has played little role.
The analysis, in a report prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and released Monday, found that the main driver behind the drought was patterns of water temperatures in the Pacific Ocean. They increased the likelihood that ridges of high-pressure air would form off the California coast, blocking winter storms.
But there was nothing extraordinary about the temperature patterns, the report concluded. ''The drought is consistent with what can happen with natural variability,'' said the study's lead author, Richard Seager, a professor at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University.
Warmer temperatures in the state due to climate change ''may have done a little bit of an add-on,'' Dr. Seager said, by causing more water to evaporate.
But some scientists, including Michael E. Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, said the report had understated the impact of warming. ''The authors pay only the slightest lip service'' to higher temperatures, Dr. Mann said in an essay for The Huffington Post.
California has been gripped by severe drought since 2011, with officials reporting this fall that water storage in the state was about half of normal levels.
Although climate change is expected to lead to more instances of extreme weather, including droughts, the issue of a link to any specific weather event or episode has been debated by scientists for years.
In September, a series of papers on a drought that hit Australia last year unanimously agreed that it was a direct consequence of climate change. But three papers on the California drought -- which, like the ones about Australia, were published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society -- were divided on a link to climate change, with only one seeing a clear connection.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/science/earth/california-drought-is-said-to-have-natural-cause-.html
LOAD-DATE: December 9, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
113 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 9, 2014 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
Kerry Plans to Attend Climate Talks
BYLINE: By CORAL DAVENPORT
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 8
LENGTH: 343 words
LIMA, Peru -- In a sign of the importance that the Obama administration has placed on the outcome of United Nations climate change negotiations taking place here this week, Secretary of State John Kerry will arrive on Thursday to strongly urge negotiators to reach a deal, according to sources familiar with Mr. Kerry's plans but unauthorized to speak to the media. Typically, the secretary of state would not join diplomatic negotiations at this level, but Mr. Kerry has made climate change a priority of his tenure.
He spent months helping broker an agreement, announced in November, that commits the United States and China to cutting carbon emissions. That announcement by the world's two biggest polluters is viewed as a breakthrough with the potential to clear the way for a truly global climate deal, in which every country would commit to cutting fossil-fuel emissions.
Negotiators are hoping to produce a draft of such a deal by the end of the conference on Friday or Saturday, with the expectation that world leaders will sign on to the final plan next year in Paris. President Obama, using his executive authority, has already pushed through a set of climate change regulations in the United States.
Despite November's announcement, many obstacles remain before a global agreement can be produced. Developing nations vulnerable to climate change are demanding that industrialized nations commit billions of dollars in public funding to help them adapt to the ravages of global warming.
China, although it agreed to cuts, is hesitating about allowing outside monitoring of its emissions. Oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela are seen as quietly trying to block a deal behind the scenes. And many nations worry that, while Mr. Obama has enacted new regulations, the incoming Republican Congress will block or repeal them.
Mr. Kerry is no stranger to such negotiations; he is arguably more familiar with climate change than any of his predecessors. As a senator, he attended annual United Nations climate change summit meetings for years.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/us/politics/kerry-plans-to-attend-climate-talks.html
LOAD-DATE: December 9, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
114 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 9, 2014 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
Looking to a Neighbor for Help
BYLINE: By DENNIS OVERBYE
SECTION: Section D; Column 0; Science Desk; Pg. 3
LENGTH: 1213 words
Ten thousand times a hundred thousand dusty years ago
Where now it stands the Plain of Gold did once my river flow.
It stroked the stones and spoke in tongues and splashed against my face,
Till ages rolled, the sun shone cold on this unholy place.
That was the planet Mars as channeled by the folk singer and science writer Jonathan Eberhart in ''Lament for a Red Planet.''
Ever since the Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli thought he spied lines that he called ''canali'' on Mars in 1877, earthlings' romantic thoughts about our nearest cosmic neighbor have revolved around water and its possible consequence, Life as We Know It. We haven't found life on Mars, but decades of robotic exploration have indeed strengthened astronomers' convictions that rivers and perhaps even oceans once flowed on the red planet.
Today Mars is an arid, frigid desert, suggesting that the mother of all climate changes happened there, about four billion years ago or so. The question that haunts planetary scientists is why? And could it happen here?
''I think the short story is the atmosphere went away and the oceans froze but are still there, locked up in subsurface ice,'' said Chris McKay, an astrobiologist and Mars expert at NASA's Ames Research Center.
In September a new spacecraft known as Maven, the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution mission, swung into orbit around the planet. Its job is to get a longer answer to one part of the mysterious Martian climate change, namely where the planet's atmosphere went.
One idea is that it was sputtered away by radiation and particles from the sun, known as the solar wind. Maven was designed to test that theory by measuring how fast Mars is losing atmosphere today. The results could help scientists determine what the atmosphere was like four billion years ago, and just how warm and wet the planet was.
''We're going to get some suggestive answers,'' said Bruce Jakosky, a University of Colorado professor and principal investigator for Maven.
The results could resonate beyond Mars or even our solar system, shedding light on the fickle habitability of exoplanets. Alien astronomers looking at our solar system with a good telescope four billion years ago might have concluded that Mars was a likely habitat for life. Now look at it.
''What we are learning about are planetary atmospheres in general,'' said David Brain, a Colorado astronomer and Maven team member. ''It's really fascinating to think that the planet changed in such a large way.''
Everybody agrees that Mars was once wetter, on the basis of two lines of evidence. The surface of the planet is crossed with features that resemble old river channels, like the tributaries and canyons that lead into Chryse Planitia, the Plain of Gold, an ancient crater 1,000 miles wide and a mile-and-a-half deep. And NASA's rovers have found minerals characteristic of watery environments, formed four billion years ago.
But answers on exactly how wet and warm Mars was -- and for how long -- depend on whom you talk to.
According to one camp, Mars back then had a thick atmosphere with enough carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas looming big in Earth's future, to warm up the temperature and keep it there for the hundreds of millions of years it would have taken to carve the Martian river system. Others have suggested that phenomena like asteroid impacts or the tilting of Mars's poles could have produced shorter periods of near-freezing temperatures. The impact that created the huge crater called the Hellas basin, for example, would have hurled vast amounts of vaporized rock into the sky -- leading to decades or centuries of hot rain and flash floods, said Brian Toon of the University of Colorado. It might have been followed perhaps by a lingering era of nearly freezing temperatures as clouds left over from the steam bath produced a mild greenhouse effect.
Some geologists question whether the complicated river systems on Mars could have been created in such relatively short episodes, but they admit a serious flaw in their alternative view of a long-lasting greenhouse atmosphere of carbon dioxide. Namely, where did it go?
''The holy grail of Mars,'' said Dr. Jakosky of the Maven team, is to find the carbonate deposits that should have formed from its atmosphere. ''We haven't found them,'' he said.
Which is where the new Maven mission comes in. One of the most striking clues that something has happened on Mars has come from atmospheric measurements from previous probes. They have shown that the lighter forms, or isotopes, of elements like hydrogen, nitrogen and argon are strangely depleted by contrast with their abundance on Earth.
On Mars the ratio of heavy nitrogen, which has an extra neutron in its nucleus, to regular nitrogen is twice that of Earth. The same pattern goes for argon, which is Dr. Jakosky's favorite because it is chemically inert and can't disappear from the inventory except by being swept out of the atmosphere.
All told, Dr. Jakosky said, the isotopic ratios on Mars suggest that about 60 to 90 percent of the atoms that were once in the Martian atmosphere might have been lost to space.
''We know the mechanism by which it was lost, but we can't quantify it yet,'' he said.
The story goes something like this. Once upon a time, Mars had a magnetic field that, like Earth's, acted as an umbrella, deflecting the rain of energetic particles shed by the sun. Earth's field is generated by a dynamo, which in turn is powered by rising heat, convection in the planet's molten iron core. Once Mars cooled off, the dynamo and the magnetic field stopped and the solar wind began pecking away at Mars's atmosphere. Ultraviolet radiation from the sun would ionize atoms in the upper atmosphere, making them subject to forces from magnetic fields carried along in the solar wind, and they would slip away into space an atom or two at a time.
''A little bit every few hours,'' Dr. Brain of Colorado said, and ''suddenly you can change an entire planet.''
Eventually -- with no atmosphere, no rain and none of the tectonic churning that keeps Earth's oceans refreshed -- the Martian rivers and oceans, if any, would have been absorbed into the ground and frozen, said James Kasting, a geoscientist at Penn State. Indeed, orbiting spectrometers have detected the signature of water in the form of ice under the wasted and lonely red sands.
In September, after a 10-month trip from Earth and just in time to observe the effects of Comet Siding Spring pass by Mars, Maven began settling into a looping orbit around Mars, flying as close as 77 miles. Its instruments will observe the sun and solar wind; Mars's upper atmosphere, the pool from which escaping particles are drawn; and the particles themselves as they escape. By understanding how the atmosphere is reacting to the sun today, Dr. Jakosky said, scientists should be able to extrapolate and say how much of the Martian atmosphere has been removed to space over the eons.
If the amount lost is substantial -- ''a couple of bars of CO2,'' he said, describing it in units of the atmospheric pressure on Earth -- ''would tell us that Mars must have been warmer in the past.''
If losses are trivial, he said, that would spell death for the early greenhouse theory, and the great Martian arguments would continue.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/science/looking-to-mars-to-help-understand-changing-climates.html
LOAD-DATE: December 9, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: A painting of early Mars, showing shallow seas across the northern lowlands and weather systems drifting in a denser atmosphere than today's. (PHOTOGRAPH BY MICHAEL CARROLL)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
115 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 9, 2014 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
Europe May See More Heat Waves
BYLINE: By DAVID JOLLY
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 8
LENGTH: 643 words
PARIS -- In June 2003, a high-pressure weather system took hold over Western Europe and hovered there for weeks, bringing warm tropical air to the region and making that summer the hottest since at least 1540, the year King Henry VIII discarded his fourth wife, Anne of Cleves.
Temperatures were about 2.3 degrees Celsius, or 4.1 degrees Fahrenheit, above average that summer, contributing to perhaps 70,000 additional deaths and hitting the elderly particularly hard. The heat was a factor in the outbreak of forest fires and in lower than usual crop yields. It caused Alpine glaciers to shrink at a rate double that seen in the previous record summer, five years earlier.
Now, three scientists from the Met Office, the British weather agency, have concluded that human-caused global warming is going to make European summer heat waves ''commonplace'' by the 2040s.
Their findings, published Monday in the online journal Nature Climate Change, suggest that once every five years, Europe is likely to experience ''a very hot summer,'' in which temperatures are about 1.6 degrees Celsius, or 2.9 degrees Fahrenheit, above the 1961-90 average. This is up from a probability, just a decade ago, that such events would occur only once every 52 years, a 10-fold increase.
To predict how global warming will play out in Europe in the years ahead, Nikolaos Christidis and two of his Met Office colleagues first looked back with a statistical tool called optimal fingerprinting. Their method, in which they entered observed data into complex mathematical models, allowed them to assign responsibility for weather events to natural or human-made factors, an approach that scientists call ''climate attribution.''
Dr. Christidis and his colleagues, Gareth S. Jones and Peter A. Stott, studied historical data for an area encompassing most of Western Europe and the Mediterranean. They found a striking rise in the probability of extreme summer temperature events over just two decades, 1990-99 and 2003-12.
The study also found that the probability of a temperature increase of the magnitude experienced in the 2003 heat wave has gone from less than one every 1,000 years to about one every 127 years. That is because average temperatures have increased over the past two decades and are expected to keep rising.
''In the space of one decade, the frequency of these kinds of events changed quite a lot,'' Dr. Christidis said in a telephone interview.
European summer temperatures ''have increased a lot over the last 10 or 15 years,'' he said. ''And as the climate becomes warmer, you have more of a chance of exceeding these temperature thresholds.''
Dr. Christidis said the vulnerability of Europeans became evident during the 2003 heat wave, but he added that scientists should only report their findings, not suggest policies for adaptation. He said it was impossible to estimate what the human toll from future heat waves would be, ''as this very much depends on changes that people may make to better adapt.''
Michael Oppenheimer, the Albert G. Milbank professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton, who was not involved in the study, said the researchers' conclusions appeared to be plausible, as ''events of extreme heat, which were previously highly unlikely to occur, have become much more likely,'' even if such events are unlikely in any given year.
If carbon emissions, the main human contributor to climate change, continue to rise, he added, events that are currently rare will ''become the norm by 2100.''
Dr. Oppenheimer said the specific numbers produced by the study needed ''to be interpreted with caution,'' because of the complexity involved in modeling the atmosphere and ensuring that the data accurately reflect what is happening in the real world.
''Nevertheless, this paper probably represents the best that can be done right now,'' he said.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/world/europe/global-warming-to-make-european-heat-waves-commonplace-by-2040s-study-finds.html
LOAD-DATE: December 9, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
116 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Sinosphere)
December 9, 2014 Tuesday
At Climate Meeting, China Balks at Verifying Cuts in Carbon Emissions
BYLINE: EDWARD WONG
SECTION: WORLD; asia
LENGTH: 639 words
HIGHLIGHT: Officials have sometimes referred to a 24-year-old clause that says countries should have “common but differentiated responsibilities,” meaning developed and developing nations have different standards to meet when it comes to taking action on climate change.
Last week, climate change negotiators from around the world converged on Lima, Peru, with a new sense of momentum. One driver of that attitude was the fact that just last month, President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China made a joint announcement in Beijing in which each pledged to try to limit or reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the coming years. Mr. Xi promised that China would reach an emissions peak by "around 2030" and have 20 percent of its energy come from non-fossil fuels by that year.
Now in Lima, climate negotiators are trying to shape commitments that would be finalized at a summit meeting in Paris next year. The talks are scheduled to run through this week. One proposal would require countries to submit to international electronic monitoring and verification in cutting carbon dioxide emissions, to ensure they are keeping to their commitments.
China has for years balked at such requirements, and as of early this week its negotiators in Lima were working to ensure that the final document would not include such clauses, said an environmental advocate in Lima, who is tracking the talks and spoke on the condition of anonymity to not be seen as influencing the events. Some evironmental analysts say China might simply be staking out a starting positionfor negotiations and may eventually relent.
Chinese officials have sometimes referred to a 24-year-old clause in an earlier agreement that says countries should have "common but differentiated responsibilities," meaning developed and developing nations have different standards to meet when it comes to taking action on climate change.
On Monday, The New York Times asked the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs about the country's insistence that outsiders should not monitor emissions-reduction pledges. Hong Lei, a ministry spokesman, said in a written statement:
Your question touches on the issue of transparency. On this issue, China always supports increasing transparency and further improving the rules of reporting. The new protocol over the reporting mechanism of greenhouse gas emissions should reflect "the common but differentiated responsibilities" between developed and developing countries, taking into consideration the reality that developing countries' basic capacities in areas like national statistics and assessment are still insufficient. Developed countries should provide appropriate support to developing countries.
Your question is very specific. Its details have yet to be verified. As far as I know, the Lima conference is just entering its second week, and a relevant draft is still under negotiation. All sides will hold further discussions on the principles of open transparency, consensus through consultation and initiative by signatories.
In the last two years, Chinese leaders have become more willing to discuss international cooperation in combating climate change. That is in large part because a populist surge of angerover toxic smog in Chinese cities has led some leaders to conclude that industrial coal consumption - the main source of the smog - needs to be curbed. Coal burning is also the main source of carbon dioxide emissions, and so fighting climate change overlaps with fighting pollution.
At an academic conference in Beijing on Monday, a meteorologist, Zhang Xiaoye, emphasized again that coal is the main source of pollution, according to The Beijing News. Last year, China consumed 3.61 billion tons of coal, equal to the rest of the world combined. The effects are visible on a weekly basis, especially in northern Chinese cities. On Tuesday afternoon, readings on the air quality index at the United States Embassy in Beijing exceeded 400, well into the "hazardous" range, in which people are not supposed to venture outdoors.
Patrick Zuo and Jess Macy Yu contributed research.
LOAD-DATE: December 9, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
117 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 8, 2014 Monday 8:13 PM GMT
Tackling climate change on a global scale - the COP 20 in Peru;
The UN's global climate summit in Lima, Peru, could start the ball rolling to finally tackle greenhouse gas emissions
BYLINE: Jeff Hayward
SECTION: FOLLOW THE FROG - RAINFOREST ALLIANCE PARTNER ZONE
LENGTH: 579 words
The UN framework convention on climate change (COP 20), under way in in the Peruvian capital Lima, will not produce a global climate treaty. That will depend on reaching a series of agreements with the 20 nations that emit 80% of total global greenhouse emissions (GHG), and the economic sectors that have the biggest impact on the world's climate. However, it could pave the way for a treaty being signed in Paris next year that will be seen as a turning point in reducing global warming.
Agriculture, forestry and climate After the energy sector, agriculture, forestry and other land use accounts for the largest amount of global greenhouse gas emissions - about 25%. The recent UN Climate Summit's New York Declaration on Forests names soy, palm oil, beef and paper production as the cause of half of global deforestation - and calls for ending deforestation by 2030. If that goal is reached, it would be the equivalent to eliminating the GHG emissions of all the world's cars or of the entire US economy.
Doing what works A Rainforest Alliance delegation is presenting some of its work at COP 20 to reduce the impact of agriculture and forestry on the world's climate, and increasing the sectors' sustainability.
In Brazil, for example, the alliance has certified the first sustainable, deforestation-free cattle ranches and is promoting sustainable ranching. In the Andean Amazon it is demonstrating how different approaches can work together, from sustainable ranching in Colombia to commercial reforestation in Ecuador, to the sustainable harvest of timber and non-timber forest products, such as like palm fruit, in Peru.
These programs cut GHG emissions, protect Amazon forests and restore degraded land, and also improve agricultural productivity and the income and livelihood of rural producers that are feeling the impact of climate change directly.
Farmers at risk People living on atolls and coastal flood zones aren't the only ones displaced by climate change. Smallholder farmers, community foresters and others whose livelihoods depend on the land are also at risk. For example, climate change threatens coffee farmers' way of life in Oaxaca, Mexico. Some farmers, such as Leandro Salinas, are retooling to grow climate-friendly coffee. In this video, Salinas says: "Even though we know we aren't causing [climate change] - it's others who are causing it - we, too, must do something."
Farmers and foresters need finance, know-how and technology to cope with the impact of climate change. They also need incentives and viable alternatives to keep from clearing more forest for crops or timber. Without these things, deforestation is likely to increase, causing GHG emissions to rise.
The UN climate treaty process and the discussions under way in Lima recognizes this. The outcomes from COP 20 could include more support for regional and bilateral agreements, and for helping farmers and foresters work in sustainable, climate-smart ways. That could help lay the foundations for a global treaty in Paris at COP 21 to create a sustainable world economy.
Jeff Hayward is the director of Rainforest Alliance's climate program. He's currently leading a Rainforest Alliance delegation to the COP 20 meeting in Lima, Peru.
Content on this page is brought to you by the Rainforest Alliance, supporter of the Vital Signs platform.
LOAD-DATE: December 8, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
118 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 8, 2014 Monday 4:41 PM GMT
Heatwaves likely 'every other year' by 2030s, says Met Office study;
Carbon emissions continuing at their current levels will lead to dramatic rise in severely hot weather patterns in central Europe and the Mediterranean
BYLINE: Arthur Neslen
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 526 words
Torrid European summers like the one in 2003 which claimed an estimated 70,000 lives are set to become a regular occurrence within two decades and the "new normal" by the end of the century, according to a new Met Office study.
The climate modelling, which was published in Nature Climate Change on Monday, foresees a dramatic rise in the chance of severely hot weather patterns in central Europe and the Mediterranean, if greenhouse gas emissions continue along their current path.
"Extremely warm summers that would occur twice a century in the early 2000s are now expected to happen twice a decade," said Dr Nikos Christidis, the lead author of the new paper. "The chances of heatwaves as extreme as seen in 2003 have increased from about one-in-1,000 years to about one-in-100 years and are projected to occur once every other year by the 2030s-2040s under continuing greenhouse gas emissions."
As well as the record-breaking European summer of 2003, severe heatwaves in the last decade have baked Moscow in 2010, Texas in 2011 and Australia, in its 'angry summer' of 2012-2013.
The odds of further extreme temperature events have already whittled rapidly since the last Met Office paper on climate change 10 years ago, Peter Stott, another of the paper's authors, told the Guardian. "The predictions in that paper have been borne out by observations since," he noted.
Between the Met's 2004 climate change report looking at weather events in the 1990s and its new study, which covers the 2003-2012 period, temperatures in central Europe and the Mediterranean have risen by 0.81C.
As world leaders began arriving in Lima for talks on a new global climate treaty, the UK energy and climate change secretary, Ed Davey, said that the new research underscored the urgency of climate mitigation action.
"This research by leading academics adds to the mounting scientific evidence that extremely damaging weather events will become more frequent and severe as a result of increasing climate change," he said. "Time is running out and more needs to be done globally to preserve the quality of life we take for granted."
The planetary warming trend poses a particular threat to life-sustaining infrastructure in the water-scarce Mediterranean, which is expected to be one of the regions worst-affected by climate change.
Under a business as usual scenario, the "new normal" by 2100 would be for summers 6C warmer than today across Europe, Stott said.
"By the end of the century, these sorts of changes would be threatening the ability to sustain agriculture in that part [the Mediterranean] of the world," he said. "But for the UK too, when we get summers where we share continental weather patterns, which will still be pretty frequent, there will also be a greater risk of such heatwaves. Overall we are expecting drier, warmer summers in the UK."
The Met Office is currently researching how jetstream variations and changes to the circulation characteristics of weather patterns may interact with climate change. These could, for instance, increase the risks of 'blocking patterns' that slow the movement of weather systems, allowing heatwaves to develop and intensify.
LOAD-DATE: December 8, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
119 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 8, 2014 Monday 4:33 PM GMT
Anglo American coal firm undermining crucial climate policies, say NGOs;
Coalmining firm damned in report on lobbying that denounces private-sector's role in climate negotiations, published in Lima to coincide with Cop20
BYLINE: Diana Cariboni in Montevideo
SECTION: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT
LENGTH: 1069 words
Governments and the UN are increasingly controlled by corporate interests, which are undermining crucial climate policies and promoting mechanisms "that will allow them to profit from the climate crisis, while expanding the extraction of dirty energy", argues a damning report published in Lima on Monday.
In the report, the role of the private sector, particularly that of the coalmining company Anglo American, in intergovernmental negotiations to seal a binding agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions is aggressively denounced. The report, How Corporations Rule: Anglo American's dirty energy lobby and its false climate solutions (pdf), was released in Peru by Friends of the Earth International, the Transnational Institute (TNI) and the Corporate Europe Observatory. Previous reports by the group of NGOs investigated South Africa's Sasol and Brazil's Vale.
The authors have investigated Anglo American's activities at South America's largest opencast coalmine, Cerrejón, in La Guajira peninsula in Colombia, and its lobbying efforts at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Coalmining in Cerrejón began more than 30 years ago. The Colombian government sold its shares to Anglo American, BHP Billiton and Glencore Xstrata in 2000 and the three companies jointly own Cerrejón. Production totals 33m tonnes a year yet coal has not enriched La Guajira: almost 56% of the local population live in poverty, almost 26% in extreme poverty, according to official figures (pdf).
Local communities, indigenous people, African-Colombians and peasants have fought Cerrejón over control of land and water resources. According to the company's figures, the mine uses 17m litres of water per day; the average personal consumption in Alta Guajira is 0.7 litres, says the report.
"This year, La Guajira suffered a prolonged drought of nine months," said Lyda Forero, a researcher at TNI. "In our talks with the communities, we saw people had very scarce access to water, while the mine continued consuming, and drying up, the wells and sources."
Cerrejón said it was aware of the scarcity in La Guajira and has created a Water Foundation to support permanent access to water. It said it took action to limit the impact of the drought, including repairing mills, providing tanks to store water in and delivering water directly to local communities.
Cerrejón said about 88% of the water it uses comes from the coal seams and from rain. Both sources are "low-quality water" and "cannot be used for either human or animal consumption nor for crops".
The company has offered compensation to residents as part of a resettlement package. It has also set up other foundations to promote microbusinesses, support the sustainable development of the Wayúu indigenous people and create more transparent institutions.
However, not all families are benefiting, according to Forero; only some have received cash payments. Those who took the cash regret their decision, Forero said, because their lives have not improved and "they lost connection to their original lands, ancestors and traditions". She argues that the government, instead of guaranteeing the population's rights, has created a vacuum in which Cerrejón, through its foundations, has become the main policymaker.
Cerrejón recognised the controversy of the compensation packages, but argued that some families have benefited. It said: "A resettlement never is an easy process. We maintain permanent communications with all the communities we have resettled and those who are in process. There is no unanimity regarding resettlements and many communities and families have benefited from these programmes."
It said the package offered by the company follows International Finance Corporation guidelines and comprises housing, education and health projects.
The report claims that the "green" projects have few benefits to the population and the environment. Between 2008 and 2011 there were no reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, according to Cerrejón's own sustainability study (pdf).
The report also accuses Anglo American, which has investments in Brazil, Chile and Peru, of "spinning a web of influence" to ensure the longest possible future for coal production, a major source of greenhouse gases.
Anglo American's media manager, Emily Blyth, said: "Coal plays a necessary role to support the developing world to access affordable energy."
Anglo American is a member of trade associations and lobby groups, including Euromines, the International Council on Mining and Metals, the International Energy Agency Clean Coal Centre, the UN Global Compact, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the International Chamber of Commerce, which enjoy privileged access to governments and advocate market-based mechanisms.
These mechanisms include the experimental geoengineering technology of carbon capture and storage - for which the industry is creating " CCS ready " coal and gas, the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation initiative and emissions trading schemes. Anglo American argued that its lobbying role is to support the uptake of such mechanisms, saying: "We engage with governments to inform policy for the effective uptake of new technologies."
The report is calling on the UN to introduce measures to protect its institutions from the influence of the private sector. Businesses should not have privileged positions in negotiations and the role of the business and industry group should be limited, it says.
The UN should introduce a code of conduct for its officials, including a cooling off period during which former officials cannot work for lobby groups. The World Health Organisation set a global precedent against corporate lobbyists when it took action to ensure the tobacco industry had no role in public health policymaking, said the report.
It also calls for the UN Global Compact, a UN initiative to encourage sustainable business practice, to be dismantled. "All of what is being done is to ensure businesses have a greater voice at the table in climate talks and in all areas of environment and development," said Corporate Europe Observatory campaigner Pascoe Sabido. "The Global Compact is at the core of the problem, not the solution. Businesses are not short of a voice. But it is not their solutions that will take us out of this mess, it is people's solutions. And people's solutions are what need to be seen."
LOAD-DATE: December 8, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
120 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 8, 2014 Monday 4:28 PM GMT
George Osborne oversees biggest fossil fuel boom since North Sea oil discovery;
Investment in clean energy plummets, while big rise in road and airport building adds to bleak picture for environment
BYLINE: Damian Carrington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 882 words
George Osborne has sparked the biggest boom in UK fossil fuel investment since the North Sea oil and gas industry was founded in the 1970s. Analysis of new Treasury data also shows investment in clean energy has plummeted this year and is now exceeded by fossil fuels, while road and airport building is soaring.
After years of coalition infighting over green energy, the stark shift marks a major victory for the chancellor. But it conflicts with David Cameron's recent statement that climate change is "a threat to our national security and to economic prosperity" and his 2010 pledge to the lead the "greenest government ever". UK ministers are currently at UN climate talks in Peru arguing for strong action against global warming.
In Wednesday's autumn statement, Osborne added £430m to the billions in tax breaks he has granted the fossil fuel sector since 2012. Taxpayers will also now fund seismic exploration to help companies find more oil and gas and will pay £31m for shale gas research drilling plus another £5m to "ensure the public is better engaged" with fracking.
Osborne said the North Sea tax breaks "demonstrate our commitment to the tens of thousands of jobs that depend on this great British industry".
Joan Walley MP, who heads parliament's environmental audit committee, said: "Taxpayers should not be propping up the fossil fuel industry in the 21st century. Tax breaks should be used to support firms that come up with innovative clean energy solutions, not to keep us drilling for the fossil energy fuelling climate change."
Matthew Spencer, the director of the thinktank Green Alliance, whose experts performed the new analysis, accused Osborne of political manoeuvring before the general election.
"A series of short-term tactical decisions have reversed what was a very encouraging picture for UK infrastructure. These stark figures show that you can't focus on oil extraction and road building and expect to deliver a cleaner, leaner economy."
Green Alliance, praised in November as an "immensely important" thinktank by Osborne's cabinet colleague Oliver Letwin, scrutinised the data in the Treasury's infrastructure pipeline, which collates all public and private investments over £50m.
The analysis revealed that, compared with the 2012 pipeline data, expected investment in fossil fuels rocketed from 8% to 61% of all energy investment in 2014-15, reaching £15.2bn. The Treasury claims that half of this is the result of Osborne's tax breaks.
Investment in low-carbon energy tumbled from an expected £25bn in 2014-15 to £10bn, the analysis found. This is despite the National Infrastructure Plan having the stated goal of reducing "carbon emissions in order to mitigate climate change and meet the UK's legally binding targets". For the period 2015-20, the expected share devoted to fossil fuels has more than tripled to 33%, although low-carbon energy including nuclear power will receive more.
The share of expected transport infrastructure spending also moved away from cleaner public transport to roads and airports, which together rose from 8% to 36% of the total in 2015-20. Road spending ballooned more than 20 times to £32.7bn for 2015-20.
"We are working hard on the transition to a low-carbon economy and turning around a legacy of underinvestment in our energy sector," said a spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change. "The move away from fossil fuels will not happen overnight, and oil and gas are forecast to remain a key element of the UK's energy mix for some years to come. This is consistent with a least-cost approach to the UK's binding 2050 emissions reduction target."
Spencer said the oil and gas investment boom would lock in greater fossil fuel dependency and cut the UK's options for reducing future emissions. A Treasury spokesman highlighted the increased electrification of railways and support for electric cars.
"What does Osborne know that China, Germany and the USA don't?" said Louise Hutchins, the head of Greenpeace UK's energy campaign. "At the moment when the big industrial powers are starting to realise the future is low-carbon, Osborne seems intent on dragging Britain back to depression-era technologies to match his depression-era economics with new subsidies for old coal plants and declining North Sea oil and gas."
Caroline Flint, Labour's shadow energy and climate change secretary, said Conservative antipathy to renewable energy would cost the UK "the high-skilled, high-wage jobs we need for the future", echoing recent comments by Ed Davey, the Lib Dem energy secretary.
Flint said: "The smart money is on the low-carbon economy. The UK can be a world leader in green technology and services, but under the Tories our competitive edge is being eroded."
In 2009, six months before becoming chancellor, Osborne also praised the green economy. "The global market for green goods and technologies is worth trillions of dollars a year, but with less than a 5% share of that market Britain is failing to take advantage. This has got to change," he said. "I want a Conservative Treasury to lead the development of the low carbon economy."
However, most Conservative MPs remain sceptical about global warming and Ukip, which has attracted two Tory defectors, also decries climate action as expensive and unnecessary.
LOAD-DATE: December 8, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
121 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 8, 2014 Monday 3:34 PM GMT
Australia named worst-performing industrial country on climate change;
Performance index released at Lima climate talks puts Denmark in the best-performing slot, followed by Sweden and Britain
BYLINE: Graham Readfearn in Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 579 words
Australia has been named the worst-performing industrial country in the world on climate change in a report released at international negotiations in Peru.
The climate change performance index ranked Denmark as the best-performing country in the world, followed by Sweden and Britain.
Among the world's top 10 emitters, Germany was ranked the highest at 22. Australia was second bottom overall, above Saudi Arabia - which was not classified as industrial.
The report states: "The new conservative Australian government has apparently made good on last year's announcement and reversed the climate policies previously in effect. As a result, the country lost a further 21 positions in the policy evaluation compared to last year, thus replacing Canada as the worst-performing industrial country."
China, the world's biggest emitter, was in 45th spot - one below the US, which is the world's second largest emitter of greenhouse gases that cause climate change.
But in an indication of the challenge facing governments to increase their ambition, the report said if every country in the world performed as well as the highest-ranking countries global temperatures would still likely rise more than 2C - a level considered to be dangerous.
For that reason the top three places in the ranking were left blank.
The CCPI report, produced by the thinktank Germanwatch and Climate Action Network Europe, covers the top 58 emitters of greenhouse gases in the world and about 90% of all energy-related emissions.
Jan Burck, report author at Germanwatch, told the Guardian: "It is interesting that the bottom six countries in the ranking - Russia, Iran, Canada, Kazakhstan, Australia and Saudi Arabia - all have a lot of fossil fuel resources. It is a curse.
"The fossil fuel lobbies in the countries are strong. In Australia they stopped what were some very good carbon laws."
The report was released within the confines of the UN climate talks in Lima at the start of the second week of negotiations.
The talks are aiming to establish the draft text of a new international climate change agreement to be signed by all countries at the next major talks in Paris in late 2015.
The index covers the performance of countries across five areas - the level of emissions, the trends in emissions, energy efficiency, renewable energy policies and the approach to climate change at national and international levels.
Denmark was becoming a model country, Burck said, with the report praising the country's "ambitious renewable energy and emissions reduction policies".
The report said Denmark "sets an example in how industrialised countries can not only promise, but also implement effective climate policies".
Erwin Jackson, of the Australian charity the Climate Institute, told the Guardian: "Australia has been heading backwards by undertaking actions such as attempting to kneecap the renewable energy industry through regressive policy changes.
"We also should be playing our fair part in global action, not trying to free ride on the actions of others."
He said Australia was "increasingly unprepared" for an emerging global shift to clean energy.
Last month a UN environment programme report named Australia alongside Canada, the US and Mexico as the only countries that were likely to miss their current 2020 targets to cut emissions.
The 2014 Emissions Gap report said the scrapping of Australia's carbon price meant the country was "no longer on track" to meet its target to cut emissions by 5% by 2020.
LOAD-DATE: December 8, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
122 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 8, 2014 Monday 3:33 PM GMT
Morocco and Mexico biggest beneficiaries of climate funds;
Morocco gets over $600m in finance over past decade but some countries in need have been missing out, report finds
BYLINE: George Arnett
SECTION: NEWS
LENGTH: 311 words
Morocco and Mexico have both received over half a billion in finance (mostly in loans) from some of the world's major climate funds, according to a new report by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI).
The report analysed a decade of money going into nine national and two international funds set up to tackle climate change. Of the $7.6bn in funding that the ODI looked at, half of it was going to just ten countries.
The chart below shows how much each country received in financing and how much of that was for mitigating the effects of climate change.
However, the figures also shows that many countries that are particularly vulnerable to climate change are missing out on financing. Countries such as Namibia, El Salvador and Guatemala all received less than $5m each (fewer than 1/100th of what the top countries get).
Some of the projects benefitting from the funds included a massive increase in Mexico's renewable energy capacity in a system previously powered by fossil fuels; the development of Morocco's solar energy resources and Brazil reforesting 3,000 hectares of land.
Of the funds that they looked at, the UK pledged the most contributions of any country at $2.5bn, with the US giving $2.4bn.
ODI research fellow and report author, Smita Nakhooda said:
These start-up climate funds were pioneering in their approach, and a huge amount has been learnt from their experience. There are now too many small climate funding 'pots' with substantial overlap and finance is spread too thinly between them, creating an urgent need to learn from experience and improve the system. The lives of millions of people in poor countries affected by climate change depend on getting this right.
Next year will see the roll out of a new green climate fund, which has already raised almost $10bn in seven months. This is more than these other schemes raised in a decade.
LOAD-DATE: December 8, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
123 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 8, 2014 Monday 2:18 PM GMT
Michael Gove bars Tory minister Amber Rudd from Lima climate change talks;
Lib Dem Ed Davey, climate change secretary, goes on ahead as Tory chief whip tells MP to stay for counter-terror measures vote
BYLINE: Patrick Wintour, political editor
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 758 words
Michael Gove, the Conservative chief whip, has barred a climate change minister from attending critical climate change talks in Lima this week in order for her to stay in the UK to vote in the Commons on counter-terror measures.
Amber Rudd had been due to fly out last week to attend a summit intended to pave the way for a full-scale five-year United Nations agreement on how to tackle climate change in Paris next year.
It was made clear on Sunday that Ed Davey, the energy and climate change secretary, would fly out early on Monday, but a Liberal Democrat source said it was inexplicable the Conservative whips had decided not to make the talks a priority and send Rudd ahead.
A Liberal Democrat source said: "It's stunning that Tory high command has stopped their own climate change minister from attending these crucial talks. We're a year away from what we hope will be a historic global deal to tackle climate change, and these talks are aimed at putting the building blocks in place. The Tories are showing their true colours, and they're not green."
Rudd, appointed climate change minister six months ago, had appeared committed to the UK taking a lead on climate action, saying she wanted to do the job for more than seven months, and adding that her priority was greater UN recognition of the value of carbon markets in reducing carbon emissions.
The government is facing votes on the infrastructure bill and the counter-terrorism bill this week, but there is no obvious sign the coalition is about to be defeated in any vote that requires her attendance in the Commons.
In recent months it has sometimes appeared as if the Conservative side of the coalition is embarrassed by its commitment to climate change - doing as little as possible, for instance, to publicise its promise to spend more than £600m on the Green Climate fund, money designed to help developing countries adapt to climate change. The US pledged $3bn during the G20 summit but the UK tried to keep its generous funding secret for as long as possible.
At the weekend Ed Miliband accused the government of dither and denial over climate change, as green groups complained the chancellor had made no mention of climate change in his autumn statement.
Rudd said herself this year : "I don't think you could get a cigarette paper between me and Labour on our commitment to getting a deal in Paris. We are all completely committed to it, whatever the outcome."
The Lima summit is intended to set the groundwork for the "upfront information" countries should include with their contributions to cut their carbon emissions. This is designed to help other countries and campaign groups to appraise and compare targets, measure progress and assess targets collectively against the goal of limiting warming within 2°C over pre-industrial levels.
Essential issues such as the base year used, the sectors and gases covered, expected participation in international carbon markets and the national policies expected to facilitate emissions reductions are all due to be discussed. Other issues due to be agreed are whether agreements are legally or politically binding.
In November, a joint agreement was made that the United States would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 26% below 2005 levels by 2025 and China would peak its CO2 emissions by around 2030. China subsequently also committed to cap its annual coal consumption by around 2020, after which its use of coal is expected to decline.
The Kyoto Protocol contained ambitious targets for developed countries but left developing countries as well as Russia and the US out of the equation. The subsequent Copenhagen accord was less ambitious but was more comprehensive. The Paris conference aims to be both comprehensive and include ambitious plans for individual countries.
Greenpeace UK energy and climate campaigner Vicky Wyatt said: "The Tory climate change minister's no-show at the Lima summit is yet another sign that David Cameron's commitment to this vital issue is wavering. Just three months ago, the prime minister told a UN summit that climate change is 'one of the most serious threats facing our world', yet he's just barred the minister in charge from attending negotiations crucial to clinching a global climate deal next year.
"Last winter's devastating floods showed there's no drawbridge Britain can pull up to keep safe from the impacts of climate change. If David Cameron wants the public to trust him with the country's security, he should dispatch his climate minister to Lima at once."
LOAD-DATE: December 8, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
124 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 8, 2014 Monday 2:00 PM GMT
California just had its worst drought in over 1200 years, as temperatures and risks rise;
Global warming is playing havoc on extreme weather
BYLINE: Dana Nuccitelli
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1199 words
A new paper published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters by Griffin & Anchukaitis concludes that the 2012-2014 drought in California was its most intense in at least 1,200 years.
The study used drought reconstructions from tree-ring cores, from the North American Drought Atlas (NADA) and from cores Griffin & Anchukaitis collected from blue oak trees in southern and central California. Blue oak tree ring widths are particularly sensitive to moisture changes. According to Griffin,
California's old blue oaks are as close to nature's rain gauges as we get
The study compared today's drought conditions in California to those reconstructed over the past 1,200 years using the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), an estimate of available soil moisture. The data showed that California is experiencing its most intense drought in over a millennium,
the current event is the most severe drought in the last 1200 years, with single year (2014) and accumulated moisture deficits worse than any previous continuous span of dry years ... In terms of cumulative severity, it is the worst drought on record (-14.55 cumulative PDSI), more extreme than longer (4- to 9-year) droughts.
What's interesting is that the blue oak data showed that while precipitation levels in California have been low over the past 3 years, the levels haven't been unprecedented.
But at the same time as California has been getting little rain, it's also experienced record hot temperatures. It's the heat that's pushed the drought into unprecedented territory. Griffin & Anchukaitis concluded,
temperature could have exacerbated the 2014 drought by approximately 36% ... These observations from the paleoclimate record suggest that high temperatures have combined with the low but not yet exceptional precipitation deficits to create the worst short-term drought of the last millennium for the state of California ... Future severe droughts are expected to be in part driven by anthropogenic influences and temperatures outside the range of the last millennium.
Another new paper also published in Geophysical Research Letters by scientists at the University of California, Irvine likewise recognizes the extreme and unprecedented nature of California's current drought, and focuses on the risks that these events pose in the present and future.
Despite the well-recognized interdependence between temperature and precipitation ... little attention has been paid to risk analysis of concurrent extreme droughts and heatwaves ... We argue that the global warming and the associated increase in extreme temperatures substantially increase the chance of concurrent droughts and heatwaves.
As the authors note, at issue is the fact that humans are causing temperatures to rise. Thus although droughts will always happen naturally, as studies have shown, they'll become more intense in a warmer world. The combination of dry, hot weather will create bigger risks for Californians.
The human connection to the California drought
Climate scientist Michael Mann nicely summarized the ways that humans may have contributed to the current California drought,
In fact, there are at least three different mechanisms that are potentially relevant to the connection between the 2013/2014 California drought and human-caused climate change. There is (1) the impact of climate change on the pattern of sea surface temperature (SST) off the west coast. One recent study suggests that climate change favors an SST pattern in the North Pacific that increases the incidence of the atmospheric circulation pattern responsible for the current drought. Then there is (2) the marked decrease in Arctic Sea Ice due to global warming. Studies going back more than a decade show that reduced Arctic sea ice may also favor such an atmospheric circulation pattern. More recent work by Jennifer Francis of Rutgers provides independent support for that mechanism. Finally, there is (3) the effect of global warming on soil moisture. All other things being equal, warming of soils leads to greater rates of evaporation and drying. This mechanism leads to worsened drought even if rainfall patterns are unchanged.
There's been some confusion about the human influence on the drought because two studies published this year didn't find a connection to the lack of rainfall. However, as Mann noted, those studies did not consider the three mechanisms listed above. They were incomplete. On the other hand, two other studies that considered the first factor did find a connection.
A high pressure ridge sitting of California's coast for several years (known as the " Ridiculously Resilient Ridge " for its persistence) has been a primary factor contributing to the low levels of precipitation. The ridge has pushed storms north of California, leaving the state dry. A study led by Noah Diffenbaugh at Stanford used modeling and statistics to find that these sorts of persistent high-pressure ridges are more likely to sit off California's coast in the presence of high levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Another paper published this year by Simon Wang and colleagues similarly concluded that human-caused global warming is changing conditions in the Pacific Ocean that make these high-pressure ridges off the coast stronger, thus intensifying droughts in California.
In short, it appears that humans are contributing to the strength of high pressure ridges off California's coast, which will tend to reduce the amount of precipitation in the state. High temperatures exacerbate these dry conditions by increasing evaporation, soil dryness, and water demand. According to Griffin & Anchukaitis, the record heat intensified the drought by about 36%, leading to exceptional drought conditions unprecedented in the past 1,200 years.
The drought alone is anticipated to cost California over $2 billion this year. On top of that, heat and drought also create conditions ripe for wildfires; another major problem for California. As expected, California also saw an intense wildfire season in 2014, blowing well through its firefighting budget. Now that the state is finally seeing some significant rainfall in December, those wildfires created conditions conducive to flooding and mudslides.
As a major agricultural producer, this extreme weather in California impacts the entire country and world. However, it's also giving us a glimpse at the risks we all face if we fail to curb global warming. Heatwaves, droughts, floods, wildfires, and other types of extreme weather are becoming more intense due to human-caused global warming. The longer we wait to cut carbon pollution and slow global warming, the more extreme our weather and its impacts will become.
LOAD-DATE: December 8, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
125 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 8, 2014 Monday 1:23 PM GMT
Best films on African screens as world talks climate;
A week of climate films shown across sub-Saharan Africa on AfriDocs
SECTION: CONNECT4CLIMATE PARTNER ZONE
LENGTH: 582 words
Connect4Climate partnered with AfriDocs to present a week of climate change films to coincide with the United Nations Framework on Climate Change COP meeting in Lima, Peru.
During this week some of the world's best climate films will be screened across sub-Saharan Africa on DStv channel ED (channel 190) and GOtv (channel 65). For the full program schedule and synopses of the films, please go to www.afridocs.net
The documentary films from across the globe bring the global discussions between countries back down to a human level - sharing stories of how climate change is already affecting some of the world's most vulnerable peoples.
The screenings include Black Ice, telling the story of Greenpeace's 'Arctic 30' campaign, and Beyond Prayer, which chronicles the building of artificial glaciers to provide water to farmers in the Ladakh summers. Char - The No-Man's Island depicts Meet Rubel, a fourteen-year-old boy, smuggling rice from India to Bangladesh, and Carbon for Water highlights innovative solutions to improve the health of millions of Kenyans. There Once Was An Island shows the reality of sea level rise for the culturally unique Polynesian community of Takuu, a tiny low-lying atoll in the South Western Pacific. Climate for Change is an inspiring and optimistic look at the efforts of everyday people all over the world who are making a difference in the fight against global warming. Bad Weather documents a tiny "brothel island" off the coast of Bangladesh and how climate change is affecting the community.
From India and Kenya to the Pacific Islands and the USA, these films share stories of communities overcoming the very real challenges presented by climate change.
A series of short films produced for the Action4Climate challenge will also be screened during the week. The Action4Climate competition, organized by the global communications program Connect4Climate, challenged young filmmakers to raise awareness of climate change, share experiences and inspire action by creating a video documentary. Of the hundreds of films sent in the following winning entries will be shown across sub-Saharan Africa:
The Trail of a Tale. The first place winner of the competition, this film from Portugal is a letter from the future written to our recent past, telling us how the world "turned out right". It follows the trail of someone that left words written, words of change, of action.
Global Warning. This second place winning film from Bulgaria is a documentary about the super typhoon Haiyan that hit the Philippines on 8 November 2013.
Snows of the Nile. Third place winning film from the USA. Uganda's Rwenzori Mountains rise 5000m from the heart of Africa. At their summits are some of Earth's only equatorial glaciers. But these "Mountains of the Moon", whose existence caused a sensation in Europe when they were first climbed in 1906, are disappearing fast.
Today's young people will suffer the consequences of the emissions created by previous generations. Young people's messages about climate change can serve as valuable reminders of the need for urgent action.
Their stories can also serve as messages of hope. Around the world, young people are showing initiative and taking on climate change in their communities - from building wind turbines to developing mobile apps that encourage recycling to leading political movements that call for policymakers to take action.
Content managed and produced by Connect4Climate
LOAD-DATE: December 8, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
126 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 8, 2014 Monday 1:00 PM GMT
Solar and wind energy backed by huge majority of Australians, poll shows;
Renewables among top three energy choices and a separate review debunks fears of health damage from wind turbines
BYLINE: Oliver Milman
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 823 words
Solar and wind energy enjoy strong support from the Australian public, with 80% of people putting them both among their top three energy choices in a poll for the Australia Institute.
By contrast, coal and coal seam gas were chosen by 35% and 38% of those polled as being among the best three future energy sources.
A separate review of medical literature by the Australia Institute debunked the fear that wind power damaged people's health, finding "no credible evidence" directly linking exposure to turbines with negative health effects.
The poll of more than 1,400 people showed that solar was the popular energy choice of the future, cited by 63% of respondents. Nine out of 10 people said they wanted more solar energy.
Six in 10 people said they were concerned about the impact of coal and coal seam gas on the landscape.
Despite this apparent desire for renewables - as well as the country's vast capacity for such energy - the Australia Institute report states that Australia now produces "only the world average level" of solar energy.
While the production of solar PV panels is relatively energy intensive, the report concedes, solar's output of greenhouse gases, and its impact on air quality, is completely overshadowed by the burning of coal.
Wind has the potential to supply 40% of Australia's energy needs, the report says, but the industry has been blighted by the "considerable attention" placed on the perceived health effects of wind turbines.
The Australia Institute points out that the National Health and Medical Research Council recently conducted a review of the scientific literature on the connection between windfarms and health and found there was "no consistent association between adverse health effects and estimated noise from wind turbines".
The Australia Institute report states: "Perceived high levels of opposition have been linked to a vocal minority, with many surveys suggesting reasonably high levels of support, especially in community-owned wind operations.
"Wind turbines do cause bird and bat deaths, however rates are well below deaths from many other causes including climate change, and technological advances are likely to mediate these further."
A Senate inquiry, established by crossbench and Liberal senators, is set to take yet another look at the health impact of windfarms. The construction of wind turbines has virtually ground to a halt nationally due to uncertainty over the renewable energy target. In Victoria they are banned from being put up within 2km of a dwelling without written consent.
"There has been fairly consistent support for renewables, which will only increase as people realise what's about to happen with climate change," Dr Jeremy Moss, co-author of the reports, told Guardian Australia.
"Australia is at a crossroads. Coal is on the way out and we're choosing between gas, wind and solar. The health implications are fundamental, both direct and indirect," he said.
"Gas contributes to global warming and so that's the big reason not to do it, given that the World Health Organisation says climate change is killing around 150,000 people a year. That's a clear indirect impact."
Moss said he rejected the idea that gas and nuclear power, which are both lower in emissions than coal, should be used as a "bridging fuel" until renewables were online.
"You don't build a gas plant for one or two years, you build them for 10 or 20 years so you get a return on them," he said. "Also, most of our gas is being exported and it's only better than coal if it's replacing coal here."
Moss said Tony Abbott was "very out of touch" with public opinion on energy. The prime minister has said coal is "good for humanity" and that he would like to see coal production go "up and up and up".
Moss said: "Australia, despite Tony Abbott's claims, can't hold out much longer in doing something meaningful on climate change. We are completely out of step with the rest of the world.
"The government needs to acknowledge there is a climate change problem and commit to very deep emissions cuts. From those deep cuts we need to put a heavy focus on how we produce our energy and also look at the kinds of things we export."
International climate change talks are being held in Lima, with the foreign minister, Julie Bishop, and the trade minister, Andrew Robb, representing Australia. The talks are seen as a crucial precursor to a UN summit held in Paris next year, where countries will look to strike a new deal to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.
On Monday the government was accused of trying to set up those talks for failure by insisting any agreement clinched in Paris must include legally binding emissions targets.
A separate report released by the Climate Council on Tuesday raised the bushfire season outlook from "above normal" to "major" in Victoria, owing to dry conditions. The organisation estimated the bushfire season would cost the state more than $172m in the coming months.
LOAD-DATE: December 8, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
127 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 8, 2014 Monday 11:02 AM GMT
12 paths to strengthening food security and nutrition in an unstable world;
In the face of climate change, conflicts and disease, our panel suggest how to ensure access to nutritious food for all
BYLINE: Anna Leach
SECTION: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS NETWORK
LENGTH: 932 words
Dominic Schofield, senior technical adviser of policy and programmes, Gain, Ottawa, Canada, @dschofieldGAIN
Connect farming to better food: It's important that agriculture and nutrition work better together. Across the entire agricultural chain there are opportunities to make food more nutritious: from seed choices and growing techniques to processing food and bringing products to market.
Support female farmers: Women produce more than half of all the food that is grown in the world yet receive less than 10% of credit offered to small-scale farmers, only 7% of agricultural extension services and own less than 1% of all land. The FAO estimates that if female farmers had the same access as men, agricultural output in 34 developing countries would rise by an estimated average of up to 4%. This could reduce the number of undernourished people in those countries by as much as 17%, translating to up to 150 million fewer hungry people.
Duncan Williamson, food policy manager, WWF UK, Goldaming, UK @DuncWilliamson
Save water: We are growing more and more thirsty crops, such as sugar cane, for either direct use or to feed to livestock. This is the primary issue we need to look at: 70% of available freshwater is used to grow food and we are not using it effectively.
Change eating habits: Diversifying diets is key for environmental reasons. The two biggest crops globally are sugar and soy. Neither of which we really need to grow. We don't need to keep adding sugar to our food. We use soy to feed to animals. Currently in the developed world we eat more meat than ever before, way beyond what we need to a healthy diet.
Don't blame population growth: We have enough resources for everyone if we choose to distribute things better. We already grow enough food for over 10 billion people, we just waste 30%, and feed large chunks to our cars, power stations and livestock. The problem is consumption. Nowhere is this more clear than in our food choices. We need to look to our plates and more to lower impact diets.
Grow food before fuel: Crops, the water used and the land they are grown on should not be used produce fuel before food. But I support using the inedible part of crops to produce fuel, that way we can get a double premium from one set of inputs. It should not result in more land being turned over to large scale agriculture at the expense of indigenous land rights and biodiversity.
Dennis Aviles Irahola, sustainable agriculture and gender adviser, Oxfam GB, London, UK, @oxfamgb
Promote independent sustainable agriculture: Dependence on external inputs is one factor that increases food insecurity. Sustainable agriculture, by looking to use in-farm resources and replicate natural dynamics (for example reinforcing positive influence between crops, or crops-trees, or trees-livestock) creates a more reliable and resilient farm. It could take years in the worst cases, but a gradual transition to more sustainable agriculture is possible.
Diversify incomes: A climate-related disaster affects self production and availability of food in local markets, however people with a diversified income cope much better with food insecurity than those relying only on self production. On the other hand, as we have seen during the last two food crises that people relying on self production were more resilient.
Sue Willsher, senior associate research and policy, Tearfund, London, UK, @suewillsher
Encourage cooperation: Self-help groups and cooperatives are effective for securing greater food security at local level. NGOs have a role to play in helping share information with communities about appropriate technologies.
Make progress at climate talks: Climate change is already having a huge impact on global food chains and disrupting agricultural production. The global climate community has been very slow in dealing with this and even discussing agriculture and food security in the climate negotiations. We need a fair and legally binding deal on climate agreed at next year's UN Climate talks in Paris.
Melinda Fones Sundell, senior adviser, Swedish International Agriculture Network Initiative, Stockholm, Sweden, @SIANIAgri
Diversify and localise: There are two ideas which underpin food security: diversification and local empowerment. Farmers need diversified cropping patterns for income and environmental reasons; people need diversified diets for health reasons. The more local the production, processing and marketing is, the more secure the consumer.
Look after the soil: Large scale hydroponics (growing only in water) is not likely for the near future, so we are dependent on the soil for our crops. Many practitioners advocate the " landscape approach " where all biologically based activities are recognised as interdependent and planned to be sustainable.
Read the full Q&A here.
Read more stories like this :
· Left alone to tend farm and family: reaching female farmers in rural India· Malnutrition in Tanzania: will food fortification laws work?· Invisible crises: have donors forgotten the hungry in Chad?· Advertisement feature: Building markets for nutritious food
Join our community of development professionals and humanitarians. Follow @GuardianGDP on Twitter.
LOAD-DATE: December 8, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
128 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 8, 2014 Monday 11:02 AM GMT
St Louis aims to ease social tensions as it joins 100 Resilient Cities programme;
The 35 newly announced 'resilient cities' include six successful US applicants, the first two Chinese cities, plus London, Paris, Sydney, Barcelona and MilanThe new resilient cities - in pictures
BYLINE: Oliver Milman in Singapore
SECTION: CITIES
LENGTH: 674 words
Strife-torn St Louis is among 35 cities around the world inducted on Wednesday into a $100m programme designed to strengthen their resilience to natural disaster, and enhance their ability to tackle issues such as violence, social exclusion and transport congestion.
The US city, which counts the troubled community of Ferguson among its suburbs, is judged to suffer from "high poverty and high crime rates". According to St Louis officials, upgrading infrastructure and improving public health and education will help ease social tensions there.
A total of 35 metropolitan areas have been added to the 100 Resilient Cities programme, an initiative funded by the Rockefeller Foundation which allocates financial and logistical support to each chosen city, including a dedicated "chief resilience officer". The first 33 cities in the programme were named last December.
A total of 331 cities across 94 countries applied to be part of this year's allocation. A team of judges was assigned by 100 Resilient Cities to choose places that have "demonstrated a dedicated commitment to building their own capacities to prepare for, withstand, and bounce back rapidly from shocks and stresses".
The second tranche of cities was named at a one-day conference in Singapore, where delegates also discussed the major threats facing cities over the coming decades: natural disasters, social unrest, economic inequality, access to healthcare, management of water and freedom of movement.
Eight Asian and Middle-Eastern cities - Phnom Penh, Deyang, Bangalore, Amman, Huangshi, Chennai, Singapore and Toyama - were chosen, along with four African cities: Arusha, Accra, Kigali and Enugu. Other successful applicants include London, Barcelona, Paris, Boston and Wellington.
Athens was chosen after a period in which the Rockefeller Foundation noted that unemployment has averaged over 50% for young people. More than a third of Athens' buildings are vulnerable to earthquakes, and the city is also baking in increasing heatwaves. But the foundation said the city is making "significant efforts" to expand welfare and healthcare services.
Also in Europe, Paris - while a "global icon" - has experienced community segregation due to urban gentrification, and its public transport system is under growing pressure, the foundation said. Lisbon is also dealing with creaking infrastructure, with city officials reporting that they are looking to do more to mitigate the impact of climate change.
Chicago is making a shift towards a technology-driven economy and is making strides to prepare itself for blizzards and floods, the foundation said. Phnom Penh suffers from regular energy blackouts and deteriorating air quality due to soaring car ownership. Meanwhile residents of Sydney, one of the world's more liveable cities, are paying soaring electricity bills due to obsolete infrastructure and are at increasing risk from climate change-driven heat waves.
Climate change, which the World Bank has warned poses a "serious threat to urban infrastructure, quality of life and entire urban systems", is a particular point of focus for the project. It is estimated that extreme weather events, which are increasingly fuelled by climate change, have already cost the world economy $2.5 trillion this century, with much of the damage caused in cities.
The newly announced 'resilient cities'
North America: Montreal (Canada); Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Pittsburgh, St Louis, Tulsa (all US); San Juan (Puerto Rico); Juarez (Mexico); Santiago de los Caballeros (Dominican Republic). South America: Cali (Colombia); Santa Fe (Argentina); Santiago (Chile). Europe: Athens, Thessaloniki (both Greece); Barcelona (Spain); Belgrade (Serbia); Lisbon (Portugal); London (UK); Milan (Italy); Paris (France). Asia: Toyama (Japan); Chennai, Bangalore (both India); Deyang, Huangshi (both China); Singapore; Phnom Penh (Cambodia); Amman (Jordan). Africa: Accra (Ghana); Arusha (Tanzania); Kigali (Rwanda); Enugu (Nigeria). Oceania: Sydney (Australia); Wellington (New Zealand).
LOAD-DATE: December 8, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
129 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 8, 2014 Monday 10:07 AM GMT
UN secretary general says no plans to reduce sustainable development goals;
In his report, Ban Ki-moon backs the 17 goals and 169 targets proposed by the UN working group, despite the difficulty member states may have in communicating them
BYLINE: Liz Ford
SECTION: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT
LENGTH: 867 words
The UN secretary general has ruled out any immediate cut in the number of proposed sustainable development goals with the launch on Thursday of his synthesis report, The Road to Dignity by 2030 (pdf).
In the report, Ban Ki-moon reaffirmed the 17 goals and 169 targets proposed by the UN open working group that will come into force after the millennium development goals expire next year.
Some member states, including the UK and Japan, have expressed concern that the large number of goals and targets would prove a challenge to implement, particularly in poorer countries, and sell to the public. Many people would be unable to recite the contents of the eight MDGs, which have been in place for almost 15 years.
In September, David Cameron told the audience of an event at the UN general assembly that he wanted a maximum of 12 goals, saying there was "a real danger they will end up sitting on a bookshelf, gathering dust" if there were 17.
Ban told reporters that the final decision on the number was up to the member states but gave no hint that he expected the number to change. "The possibility of maintaining the 17 goals, with some rearrangement, is up to member states," he said. "I am encouraged that my report received very positive and favourable responses."
When asked if the name of the goals could be changed to something more snappy, Ban said there were no plans to adopt something new, but added there was "still a nine-months negotiation process awaiting".
Ban did acknowledge the difficulty governments could have in effectively communicating the content of the goals. In an attempt to help governments, the secretary general has banded the goals into six "essential elements", which he hoped would help guide member states in their negotiations on the final targets.
Ban said the elements - dignity, people, planet, prosperity, justice and partnership - "were not an attempt to cluster or replace the SDGs, rather they are meant to offer conceptual guidance for the work ahead".
The report highlighted the importance of the internatioal conference on financing for development, taking place in Addis Ababa in July next year, for agreeing commitments for paying for the implementation of the goals.
Other key moments next year will be the special summit on sustainable development at the UN general assembly in September, where the goals are expected to be adopted, and the UNFCCC meeting in Paris in Decembe r, where member states have pledged to adopt an agreement to tackle climate change.
Ban said adequate resources, the technical know-how and the political will were crucial to create a transformative vision for the future. "I continue to urge member states to continue to keep ambitions high. We must do all it takes to provide hope for people and the planet," he said at the report's launch in New York.
Helen Dennis, senior adviser on poverty and inequality at Christian Aid, called the report a "rallying call to governments to aim high with the new global development goals. It rightly makes it clear that business as usual is not an option, and puts proper emphasis on the importance of equitable and sustainable development. The secretary general emphasises the shared nature of challenges like inequality and climate change and underlines the need for universal goals which will apply in all countries, including the UK."
Michael Elliott, president the advocacy group ONE, said: "The UN secretary general's report is a welcome drive to kickstart the global effort to end extreme poverty by 2030, and we echo his calls for an ambitious plan to finance the next chapter for development."
Margaret Batty, director of global policy and campaigns at WaterAid said: "Today's report takes us one step closer to a landmark agreement for a world where extreme poverty has been eliminated and safe water and sanitation are available to all.
"We welcome the inclusion of water, sanitation and hygiene within the six elements identified by the secretary general and emphasise how important it will be to achieve universal access to these essential needs."
However, Stephen Hale, Oxfam's deputy advocacy and campaigns director, criticised the report for not presenting a stronger message about climate change and inequality.
"Oxfam is disappointed that the UN has not made far stronger proposals to address extreme economic inequality and climate change in its new report. The under-emphasis of both issues is a grave missed opportunity," he said. "These are two major injustices that are guaranteed to undermine the efforts of millions of people seeking to escape poverty and hunger over the next 15 years."
Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah, head of Civicus: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, said the report captured many of the key issues raised by his members. "The central place given to tackling inequality is a great step forward, there's an admirable attempt to bring climate change concerns into the development agenda and the need to protect civic space is underlined," he said. "The key challenge now will be to get governments to agree to ambitious, game-changing targets for the new goals and, importantly, to put in place robust accountability mechanisms."
LOAD-DATE: December 8, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
130 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 8, 2014 Monday 9:12 AM GMT
Morocco and Mexico biggest beneficiaries of climate funds;
Morocco gets almost $600m in finance over past decade but some countries in need have been missing out, report finds
BYLINE: George Arnett
SECTION: NEWS
LENGTH: 311 words
Morocco and Mexico have both received over half a billion in finance (mostly in loans) from some of the world's major climate funds, according to a new report by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI).
The report analysed a decade of money going into nine national and two international funds set up to tackle climate change. Of the $7.6bn in funding that the ODI looked at, half of it was going to just ten countries.
The chart below shows how much each country received in financing and how much of that was for mitigating the effects of climate change.
However, the figures also shows that many countries that are particularly vulnerable to climate change are missing out on financing. Countries such as Namibia, El Salvador and Guatemala all received less than $5m each (fewer than 1/100th of what the top countries get).
Some of the projects benefitting from the funds included a massive increase in Mexico's renewable energy capacity in a system previously powered by fossil fuels; the development of Morocco's solar energy resources and Brazil reforesting 3,000 hectares of land.
Of the funds that they looked at, the UK pledged the most contributions of any country at $2.5bn, with the US giving $2.4bn.
ODI research fellow and report author, Smita Nakhooda said:
These start-up climate funds were pioneering in their approach, and a huge amount has been learnt from their experience. There are now too many small climate funding 'pots' with substantial overlap and finance is spread too thinly between them, creating an urgent need to learn from experience and improve the system. The lives of millions of people in poor countries affected by climate change depend on getting this right.
Next year will see the roll out of a new green climate fund, which has already raised almost $10bn in seven months. This is more than these other schemes raised in a decade.
LOAD-DATE: December 8, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
131 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 8, 2014 Monday 5:03 AM GMT
Abbott government accused of trying to set up climate change talks for failure;
Australia's insistence on legally binding emissions targets an 'impossible requirement' that would drive away the US and China, experts say
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 935 words
The Abbott government has been accused of setting impossible requirements for Australia's participation in any global climate change agreement clinched in Paris next year by insisting it must include legally binding emissions targets.
Experts say the Paris agreement could require countries to enshrine their new post-2020 greenhouse emission reduction targets in domestic law but that any attempt to include those targets in the legally binding international treaty itself would drive away the world's two biggest emitters - the US and China - and ensure that the process failed.
The foreign minister, Julie Bishop - who has revealed Tony Abbott knocked back her first request to attend the current preparatory meeting in Lima, Peru, and who is now to be "chaperoned" at that meeting by the trade minister, Andrew Robb - has said a Paris agreement must include binding targets. If it did not it would "amount to nothing more than aspirations", she said.
"It seems like they are trying to set impossible conditions so that they can portray a successful Paris agreement as a failure," said Frank Jotzo, associate professor at the Australian National University's Crawford School.
"Legally binding instruments can build confidence that countries will act on the commitments they make internationally. However, the legal form of an international agreement does not determine its effectiveness. The most binding treaty will do little to address climate change if some major emitters like the US and China do not participate."
The former Labor government's expert adviser on climate policy, Professor Ross Garnaut, said the government should "forget about" the idea of a legally binding treaty if it really wanted an effective climate outcome from Paris.
"A comprehensive legally binding agreement is not possible because that is not what the US does," he said. "It is rare for the US to bind itself on anything. Woodrow Wilson was unable to get the US Senate to support membership of the League of Nations that was the creation of the United States.
"President Obama has made it clear that he will not support US participation in a legally binding agreement, and that instead the US has made a serious domestic commitment to implementing the ambitious objectives embodied in the Xi-Obama Agreement. China will not enter a legally binding agreement if the US does not. So forget about it.
"A legally binding agreement is of no value anyway, as, while it may be legally binding, such an agreement is not enforceable. Look at Canada's walking away from its legally binding Kyoto commitments ... and there is no evidence that countries are more likely to deliver on notionally legally binding than on domestic political commitments.
"Kyoto" refers to the Kyoto protocol which included countries' greenhouse reduction commitments up to 2012.
The government's own independent advisory body, the Climate Change Authority, said in a report : "One thing the Paris meeting will not deliver is a universal, prescriptive, enforcement-oriented legal agreement, similar in form to the existing Kyoto protocol. For one thing, such an outcome is not achievable in the short term.
"Insisting on it would likely be counterproductive and lead to more modest global action. The value of the Paris outcome will be its effect on emissions and efforts over time, not its particular legal form."
The government has unsuccessfully sought to abolish the Climate Change Authority.
The deputy director of the Climate Institute thinktank, Erwin Jackson, said Australia's insistence on legally binding targets was setting the process up for failure.
"Any agreement signed in Paris will be binding but the individual national targets almost certainly won't be," he said. "It may be that countries are required to enshrine their targets in domestic laws, but to suggest the targets need to be part of an internationally binding commitment is to set up an impossible requirement because it would ensure that the United States, China and probably India would not be able to participate.
"The test of a country's commitment is whether it is prepared to pass domestic regulations to curb its own emissions. The United States and China have done that.
"Australia is going in the opposite direction. Its Direct Action policy contains no binding limits on emissions. This discussion about the need for legally binding international commitments is just a distraction and would be the worst possible thing for a successful global climate agreement."
The government is also under fire for refusing to make any contributions to the Green Climate Fund, to which President Barack Obama pledged $3bn during his trip to Brisbane for the G20 summit. The government says it already pays for climate adaptation and mitigation through its foreign aid budget. It has not provided figures for that contribution and the budget document on the aid program contains passing references to a program in Tuvalu.
Australia sent no minister to last year's international climate talks in Warsaw, Poland. It is believed that Robb's job is to make sure Bishop does not go too far in committing Australia to climate action, and that Bishop is very unhappy at being accompanied.
Australia has said it will unveil a post-2020 emissions reduction target before the Paris talks, but most observers believe the Direct Action policy would struggle to deliver deeper cuts than the 5% reduction promised by 2020.
Under the former Labor government Australia provided about $200m a year to the so-called "fast start" program for climate change assistance to developing countries but that spending has been cut.
LOAD-DATE: December 8, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
132 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Dot Earth)
December 8, 2014 Monday
Warming Trend and Variations on a Greenhouse-Heated Planet
BYLINE: ANDREW C. REVKIN
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 419 words
HIGHLIGHT: A fresh review of research and graphics showing the difference between the global warming trend and short-term variations in conditions.
With high-level talks over a new international climate agreement beginning in Lima, Peru, it's worth reviewing some basic points about climate change driven by the buildup of human-generated greenhouse gases. One, of course, is that the growing human influence on the system remains mixed in with a lot of natural variability in conditions.
At RealClimate, Stefan Rahmstorf of Potsdam University has written of studies showing that (surprise~!) global warming is still under way despite the recent pause / plateau / hiatus / slowdown / standstill (choose one) in the planet's mean temperature. The piece comes shortly after the World Meteorological Organization released its near-final analysis of 2014 climate conditions, noting that this year will likely end up the warmest since regular record-keeping back in the late 1800s.
Here's the take-home section of Rahmstorf's post:
[T]he warming since 1998 is not significantly less than the long-term warming. So while there has been a slowdown, this slowdown is not significant in the sense that it is not outside of what you expect from time to time due to year-to-year natural variability, which is always present in this time series.
Given the warm temperature of 2014, we already see the meme emerge in the media that "the warming pause is over". That is doubly wrong - there never was a significant pause to start with, and of course a single year couldn't tell us whether there has been a change in trend. [ .]
Rahmstorf added another RealClimate post today on a new graph created by his colleagues at the German KlimaLounge blog as a visual rebuttal to a graph created in 2009 by Anthony Watts, the online aggregator of anything questioning the significance of global warming:
In the spirit of seeking clarity amid all the noise on such questions, it's worth reposting the best animation I've seen explaining the difference between a trend and variation - in a way that even a member of Congress might grasp:[Video: Watch on YouTube.]There are critics of this approach. But I see it as a simple way to explore a really important concept.
I would be amazed if the dog-walking animation, created by Ole Christoffer Haga of TeddyTV, wasn't the inspiration for the more recent (and much more viewed) variant created for the Cosmos television series, featuring Neil DeGrasse Tyson walking a black lab on a beach:[Video: Watch on YouTube.]For more, read "Cold Weather in a Warming Climate" from 2008 and "Hot Weather in a Warming Climate" from 2010.
LOAD-DATE: December 8, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
133 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 7, 2014 Sunday 7:33 PM GMT
Michael Gove bars Tory minister Amber Rudd from Lima climate change talks;
Lib Dem Ed Davey, climate change secretary, goes on ahead as Tory chief whip tells MP to stay for counter-terror measures vote
BYLINE: Patrick Wintour, political editor
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 632 words
Michael Gove, the Conservative chief whip, has barred a climate change minister from attending critical climate change talks in Lima this week in order for her to stay in the UK to vote in the Commons on counter-terror measures.
Amber Rudd had been due to fly out last week to attend a summit intended to pave the way for a full-scale five-year United Nations agreement on how to tackle climate change in Paris next year.
It was made clear on Sunday that Ed Davey, the energy and climate change secretary, would fly out early on Monday, but a Liberal Democrat source said it was inexplicable the Conservative whips had decided not to make the talks a priority and send Rudd ahead.
A Liberal Democrat source said: "It's stunning that Tory high command has stopped their own climate change minister from attending these crucial talks. We're a year away from what we hope will be a historic global deal to tackle climate change, and these talks are aimed at putting the building blocks in place. The Tories are showing their true colours, and they're not green."
Rudd, appointed climate change minister six months ago, had appeared committed to the UK taking a lead on climate action, saying she wanted to do the job for more than seven months, and adding that her priority was greater UN recognition of the value of carbon markets in reducing carbon emissions.
The government is facing votes on the infrastructure bill and the counter-terrorism bill this week, but there is no obvious sign the coalition is about to be defeated in any vote that requires her attendance in the Commons.
In recent months it has sometimes appeared as if the Conservative side of the coalition is embarrassed by its commitment to climate change - doing as little as possible, for instance, to publicise its promise to spend more than £600m on the Green Climate fund, money designed to help developing countries adapt to climate change. The US pledged $3bn during the G20 summit but the UK tried to keep its generous funding secret for as long as possible.
At the weekend Ed Miliband accused the government of dither and denial over climate change, as green groups complained the chancellor had made no mention of climate change in his autumn statement.
Rudd said herself this year: "I don't think you could get a cigarette paper between me and Labour on our commitment to getting a deal in Paris. We are all completely committed to it, whatever the outcome."
The Lima summit is intended to set the groundwork for the "upfront information" countries should include with their contributions to cut their carbon emissions. This is designed to help other countries and campaign groups to appraise and compare targets, measure progress and assess targets collectively against the goal of limiting warming within 2°C over pre-industrial levels.
Essential issues such as the base year used, the sectors and gases covered, expected participation in international carbon markets and the national policies expected to facilitate emissions reductions are all due to be discussed. Other issues due to be agreed are whether agreements are legally or politically binding.
In November, a joint agreement was made that the United States would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 26% below 2005 levels by 2025 and China would peak its CO2 emissions by around 2030. China subsequently also committed to cap its annual coal consumption by around 2020, after which its use of coal is expected to decline.
The Kyoto Protocol contained ambitious targets for developed countries but left developing countries as well as Russia and the US out of the equation. The subsequent Copenhagen accord was less ambitious but was more comprehensive. The Paris conference aims to be both comprehensive and include ambitious plans for individual countries.
LOAD-DATE: December 7, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
134 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 7, 2014 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
Bird by Bird
BYLINE: By REBECCA SOLNIT.
Rebecca Solnit is the author of 17 books, including, most recently, ''The Encyclopedia of Trouble and Spaciousness'' and ''Men Explain Things to Me.''
SECTION: Section MM; Column 0; Magazine Desk; ESSAY; Pg. 13
LENGTH: 1286 words
The human hands in blue medical gloves spread out the swallow's wings. The brown feathers jut out like spikes, their tips frizzled and scorched. These wings are no longer graceful fans capable of cupping and pushing off against the air. The left one is worse than the right, and the tail is a pitiful cluster of sticks. This is the wreckage of a bird, the ruin of it. The beauty of a rough-winged swallow is in its flight, the way its darting, swooping path carves arabesques through the skies. Not this bird.
Imagine that bird, small enough to hold in your hand and light enough that you would hardly feel its weight. And then imagine a place nearly five times the size of Central Park, filled with mirrors that rotate like flowers to face the sun, roughly 350,000 of them. Those mirrors face three central towers, each 459 feet tall -- ''150 feet taller than the Statue of Liberty,'' as the February news release lauding the opening of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System put it. Ivanpah, in the Mojave Desert of Southern California near the Nevada border, is the biggest solar thermal plant in the world. The mirrors focus the sun's light on the central towers, generating heat to boil water and drive turbines with the steam. At full capacity these turbines should produce 392 megawatts of power, or enough electricity to power 140,000 homes.
Some waterfowl mistake that shining sea of mirrors for a real lake, so they try to land on it. But without water to launch themselves back into the air, they're stranded, prey for coyotes or doomed to die of thirst or hunger. Other birds fly into Ivanpah, where, dazzled by glare, they collide with the mirrors or towers. Still others are scorched by the heat and fall to their deaths.
It's this last form of avian death that became news. In August, The Atlantic described Ivanpah ''incinerating'' birds in flight; The Associated Press reported that wildlife investigators saw birds ''ignite,'' and that birds ''burned and fell'' every two minutes. Ivanpah's corporate website noted that a death every two minutes would mean 100,000 dead birds a year, while only 321 dead and injured birds had been recovered. The actual number of deaths seems to be well above the power plant's tally and far below the number reported by The Associated Press. But birds do die there, in many ways.
There's a gospel song with the haunting refrain ''His eye is on the sparrow,'' sung by everyone from Sam Cooke to Lauryn Hill. It describes an all-seeing, compassionate God who watches over everything, the creatures small as well as great, the rough-winged swallows as well as the trumpeter swans, the voles as well as the bighorn sheep. Our human eyes miss so much. Most of us are better at specifics than generalities, at sudden events rather than ongoing patterns, at the fate of a single sparrow rather than a species or its habitat.
To grasp climate change, you have to think in terms of species and their future. To know how things have already changed, you have to remember how they used to be, and so you may not notice birds disappearing from the skies, or hotter weather or more extreme storms and forest fires. You need to look past the sparrow and see the whole system that allows -- or allowed -- the birds to flourish. The swallows, the chinook salmon, desert tortoises, manatees, moose and us. Addressing climate means fixing the way we produce energy. But maybe it also means addressing the problems with the way we produce stories.
Supporters of fossil fuel and deniers of climate change love to trade in stories like the one about Ivanpah, individual tales that make renewable energy seem counterproductive, perverse. Stories cannot so readily capture the far larger avian death toll from coal, gas and nuclear power generation. Benjamin Sovacool, an energy-policy expert, looked into the deaths of birds at wind farms (where the blades can chop them down) and concluded that per gigawatt hour, nuclear power plants kill more than twice as many birds and fossil-fuel plants kill more than 30 times as many. He noted that over the course of a year fossil-fuel plants in the United States actually kill about 24 million birds, compared to 46,000 by wind farms. His calculations factor in climate change as part of their deadly impact.
Over all, climate change tends to be reported as abstract explanations about general tendencies and possible outcomes. It's a difficult subject to tell and to take in. The scientific side is complicated. Understanding it requires the ultimate in systems thinking: the cumulative effect of all of us burning coal and oil impacts things far away and yet to come. A lot of it is hard to see. If you didn't pay attention to a species beforehand, you won't have noticed its decline. There's no direct, tangible way for you to know the ocean is 30 percent more acidic than it used to be, or that it is expected to rise several feet in this century and then keep rising.
For a while our eyes were on the photographs of oil-soaked pelicans, victims of the 2010 BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. The devastation of the region is no longer news, but scientists, who track data for long unnewsworthy swathes of time, have found that the spill has killed more than 600,000 birds. It is still killing sea turtles and bottlenose dolphins and contaminating the seafood in areas where human beings fish. You have to look past what can be photographed -- individual cases, incidents in the past -- at the broad patterns. A recent Audubon Society report on climate change concludes: ''Of the 588 North American bird species Audubon studied, more than half are likely to be in trouble. Our models indicate that 314 species will lose more than 50 percent of their current climatic range by 2080. Of the 314 species at risk from global warming, 126 of them are classified as climate endangered. These birds are projected to lose more than 50 percent of their current range by 2050.''
That one death is a tragedy, a million deaths a statistic, is as true of animals as it is of human beings. It's a lot harder to mourn a potential loss of an entire habitat -- as is threatened now for birds like the chestnut-collared longspur -- than it is to mourn a golden eagle struck down by a turbine blade, or a warbler scorched in a solar farm. The technology for wind and solar farms can still be improved, but they are among the few remedies we have to the biggest problem humanity has ever faced. All over the world, renewable energy is proliferating -- even on the plains of West Texas, there are now wind turbines among the fracking wells. Wind and solar are not only problems but solutions to the deadliness of the fossil fuel industry, whether it's through routine devastation, as with tar sands, or catastrophic accidents, as with the BP spill, or the sabotage of the whole planetary system by climate change.
Climate change is everything, a story and a calamity bigger than any other. It's the whole planet for the whole foreseeable future, the entire atmosphere, all the oceans, the poles; it's weather and crop failure and famine and tropical diseases heading north and desertification and the uncertain fate of a great majority of species on earth. The stories about individual birds can distract us from the slow-motion calamity that will eventually threaten every bird.
And so we should seek out new kinds of stories -- stories that make us more alarmed about our conventional energy sources than the alternatives, that provide context, that show us the future as well as the past, that make us see past the death of a sparrow or a swallow to the systems of survival for whole species and the nature of the planet we leave to the future.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/magazine/are-we-missing-the-big-picture-on-climate-change.html
LOAD-DATE: February 3, 2015
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Avian Prey A northern rough-winged swallow with scorched wings found near the site of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in the Mojave Desert. (PHOTOGRAPH BY BRIGHTSOURCE ENERGY) (MM14) DRAWING (DRAWING BY JAVIER JAÉN)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
135 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 6, 2014 Saturday 5:54 PM GMT
George Osborne oversees biggest fossil fuel boom since North Sea oil discovery;
Investment in clean energy plummets, while big rise in road and airport building adds to bleak picture for environment
BYLINE: Damian Carrington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 882 words
George Osborne has sparked the biggest boom in UK fossil fuel investment since the North Sea oil and gas industry was founded in the 1970s. Analysis of new Treasury data also shows investment in clean energy has plummeted this year and is now exceeded by fossil fuels, while road and airport building is soaring.
After years of coalition infighting over green energy, the stark shift marks a major victory for the chancellor. But it conflicts with David Cameron's recent statement that climate change is "a threat to our national security and to economic prosperity" and his 2010 pledge to the lead the "greenest government ever". UK ministers are currently at UN climate talks in Peru arguing for strong action against global warming.
In Wednesday's autumn statement, Osborne added £430m to the billions in tax breaks he has granted the fossil fuel sector since 2012. Taxpayers will also now fund seismic exploration to help companies find more oil and gas and will pay £31m for shale gas research drilling plus another £5m to "ensure the public is better engaged" with fracking.
Osborne said the North Sea tax breaks "demonstrate our commitment to the tens of thousands of jobs that depend on this great British industry".
Joan Walley MP, who heads parliament's environmental audit committee, said: "Taxpayers should not be propping up the fossil fuel industry in the 21st century. Tax breaks should be used to support firms that come up with innovative clean energy solutions, not to keep us drilling for the fossil energy fuelling climate change."
Matthew Spencer, the director of the thinktank Green Alliance, whose experts performed the new analysis, accused Osborne of political manoeuvring before the general election.
"A series of short-term tactical decisions have reversed what was a very encouraging picture for UK infrastructure. These stark figures show that you can't focus on oil extraction and road building and expect to deliver a cleaner, leaner economy."
Green Alliance, praised in November as an "immensely important" thinktank by Osborne's cabinet colleague Oliver Letwin, scrutinised the data in the Treasury's infrastructure pipeline, which collates all public and private investments over £50m.
The analysis revealed that, compared with the 2012 pipeline data, expected investment in fossil fuels rocketed from 8% to 61% of all energy investment in 2014-15, reaching £15.2bn. The Treasury claims that half of this is the result of Osborne's tax breaks.
Investment in low-carbon energy tumbled from an expected £25bn in 2014-15 to £10bn, the analysis found. This is despite the National Infrastructure Plan having the stated goal of reducing "carbon emissions in order to mitigate climate change and meet the UK's legally binding targets". For the period 2015-20, the expected share devoted to fossil fuels has more than tripled to 33%, although low-carbon energy including nuclear power will receive more.
The share of expected transport infrastructure spending also moved away from cleaner public transport to roads and airports, which together rose from 8% to 36% of the total in 2015-20. Road spending ballooned more than 20 times to £32.7bn for 2015-20.
"We are working hard on the transition to a low-carbon economy and turning around a legacy of underinvestment in our energy sector," said a spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change. "The move away from fossil fuels will not happen overnight, and oil and gas are forecast to remain a key element of the UK's energy mix for some years to come. This is consistent with a least-cost approach to the UK's binding 2050 emissions reduction target."
Spencer said the oil and gas investment boom would lock in greater fossil fuel dependency and cut the UK's options for reducing future emissions. A Treasury spokesman highlighted the increased electrification of railways and support for electric cars.
"What does Osborne know that China, Germany and the USA don't?" said Louise Hutchins, the head of Greenpeace UK's energy campaign. "At the moment when the big industrial powers are starting to realise the future is low-carbon, Osborne seems intent on dragging Britain back to depression-era technologies to match his depression-era economics with new subsidies for old coal plants and declining North Sea oil and gas."
Caroline Flint, Labour's shadow energy and climate change secretary, said Conservative antipathy to renewable energy would cost the UK "the high-skilled, high-wage jobs we need for the future", echoing recent comments by Ed Davey, the Lib Dem energy secretary.
Flint said: "The smart money is on the low-carbon economy. The UK can be a world leader in green technology and services, but under the Tories our competitive edge is being eroded."
In 2009, six months before becoming chancellor, Osborne also praised the green economy. "The global market for green goods and technologies is worth trillions of dollars a year, but with less than a 5% share of that market Britain is failing to take advantage. This has got to change," he said. "I want a Conservative Treasury to lead the development of the low carbon economy."
However, most Conservative MPs remain sceptical about global warming and Ukip, which has attracted two Tory defectors, also decries climate action as expensive and unnecessary.
LOAD-DATE: December 6, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
136 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 6, 2014 Saturday
Late Edition - Final
Setting Aside a Scholarly Get-Together, for the Planet's Sake
BYLINE: By MARK OPPENHEIMER.
mark.e.oppenheimer@gmail .com; twitter: @markopp1
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; BELIEFS; Pg. 16
LENGTH: 1069 words
SAN DIEGO -- If the bioethicist Laurie Zoloth, the president of the American Academy of Religion, has her way, she'll be remembered as the woman who canceled her organization's conference, which every year attracts a city's worth of religion scholars.
Two weeks ago, at her organization's gathering, which is held jointly with the Society for Biblical Literature and this year drew 9,900 scholars, Dr. Zoloth used her presidential address to call on her colleagues to plan a sabbatical year, a year in which they would cancel their conference. In her vision, they would all refrain from flying across the country, saving money and carbon. It could be a year, Dr. Zoloth argued, in which they would sacrifice each other's company for the sake of the environment, and instead would turn toward their neighborhoods and hometowns.
''We could create an A.A.R. Sabbatical Year,'' she told the crowd in a ballroom at the San Diego Convention Center. ''We could choose to not meet at a huge annual meeting in which we take over a city. Every year, each participant going to the meeting uses a quantum of carbon that is more than considerable. Air travel, staying in hotels, all of this creates a way of living on the earth that is carbon intensive. It could be otherwise.''
And they could use the traditional days of the conference, always held the weekend before Thanksgiving, to offer talks to ''the poor, in local high schools, community colleges, or the prison, the hospital, the military base, the church, mosque, synagogue or temple.'' They could work at planting an orchard, or a garden, or serving food to the poor. ''What if we turned to our neighbor -- the woman who cleans the toilets, the man who sweeps the sidewalks -- and included them in the university to which we are responsible?''
The audacious suggestion was the centerpiece of this year's conference theme -- fighting climate change. In 2011, Dr. Zoloth, who teaches at Northwestern University, was elected vice president of the American Academy of Religion, the world's largest association of religion scholars, for the following year, 2012. Scholars work at a 40-years-in-the-desert pace, according to which the vice president becomes president-elect the next year, then ascends to the presidency a year later. So Dr. Zoloth had three years to plan her presidential year.
Almost immediately, she knew that she wanted to focus on climate change. Because in her own field, bioethics, she frequently talks with scientists, she was aware that religion scholars were lagging in their attention to climate change.
''I decided it was the core moral issue of our time,'' Dr. Zoloth said on Nov. 22, the day before her big speech. ''And I had one chance to really say I don't know the answer -- we don't know the answer, and we're faced with this. The scientists on my campus are frantic about this science. Every scientific panel I went to was filled with incredibly anxious scientists.'' And they kept asking about her religion colleagues: What are you doing?
So as she planned ahead for the 2014 conference, she encouraged the program chairmen, who coordinate the hundreds of small panels that make up the main business of the conference, to seek out papers that dealt with the environment and climate change. She succeeded; in her estimate, nearly a third of this year's papers somehow discussed the environment, ecology or related issues, like animal rights.
So attendees could have heard Cynthia Bond, of Claremont Graduate University, in California, discuss ''Strategic Essentialism as a Tactical Approach to an Ecofeminist Epistemology.'' Or Steven Heine, of Florida International University, speak on ''The Staying Power of the Zen Buddhist Oxherding Pictures.'' Or Donna L. Seamone, of Acadia University, in Nova Scotia, deliver her paper '' 'The Path Has a Mind of Its Own': Eco-Agri-Pilgrimage to the Corn Maze Performance -- an Exercise of Cross-Species Sociality.''
Not all of the presentations were so esoteric. In a riveting session, Robert P. Jones, of the Public Religion Research Institute, announced the findings of a new survey, conducted jointly with the American Academy of Religion, about how climate change attitudes vary by religious belief. Some of the findings were not surprising -- for example, white evangelical Protestants are most resistant to the findings of climate science, and they are ''much more likely to attribute the severity of recent natural disasters to the biblical 'end times' than to climate change.''
But other findings were unexpected. Hispanic Catholics were more likely to be ''very concerned'' about climate change (43 percent of them) than any other group profiled, including Jews, black Protestants or the unaffiliated. One scholar at the conference, Bernard Zaleha of the University of California, Santa Cruz, later offered a theory. ''It may be because they still have relatives in the global south, where the effects of climate change are already being felt,'' Mr. Zaleha said in an interview.
Dr. Zoloth didn't win all the victories she sought. A vegetarian, she was unable to persuade her fellow organizers to keep the conference catering meat-free. When asked why others resisted, she shook her head and said, ''I don't know. They just couldn't imagine it.''
But she has at least introduced to her fellow academy members, most of them not Jewish, the biblical concept of shmita. That is the Jewish theological term for the year, out of every seven, when, in the words of Dr. Zoloth's speech, ''all agricultural work stops, the fields are left fallow, and every living creature, animal, and person can eat from the field and the vineyard and the wide open world, when the boundaries of ownership and possession are broken so that the poor can take what they need, when all debts are released.''
We are currently in a shmita year, as it happens. The next one is 2021. That's the year, Dr. Zoloth hopes, when the organization she currently leads will cease its conferencing labors and stay home. Such an action would create problems, not least for graduate students who interview for jobs at the conference. But there's always Skype -- and besides, time is short.
''Of course it will be hard,'' Dr. Zoloth told her audience, ''and you might be thinking now how hard, how costly, how, as they say, inconvenient. But we have seven years to figure out the details, and you are a very, very clever group of scholars.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/06/us/setting-aside-a-scholarly-get-together-for-the-planets-sake.html
LOAD-DATE: December 6, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Laurie Zoloth of Northwestern, president of the American Academy of Religion. (PHOTOGRAPH BY SETH JOEL)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
137 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 5, 2014 Friday 7:33 PM GMT
Gods and faith versus Coal in name of climate change;
Religious leaders in Australia are taking on coal with polite letters and coal blockades and say they're in it for the long haul in the name of climate change
BYLINE: Graham Readfearn
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 847 words
IT's probably the closest thing the coal industry will ever get to actually receiving the word of a god - or rather, a note from several gods as well as other various prophets, spiritual leaders and the like.
Last month religious leaders representing Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and a couple of Christian denominations published an open letter calling for world leaders to "commit to a rapid transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy" to avoid "climate-related disasters".
Some of those religious leaders turned up at the Canberra offices of the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA), the peak lobbying group for the coal industry, to hand them the letter in person before holding a "multi-faith prayer vigil" outside.
For the purposes of a nice snappy headline, it's sort of like a fight between Gods and coal (except Buddhists don't really have gods... but if the Buddhists will forgive me?).
But the response hasn't been limited to prayers and firm but polite letters. Some religious leaders have also been turning up at coal mining sites. There has been civil disobedience, an arrest and, it seems, there might be more to come.
The Australian Religious Response to Climate Change (ARRCC) is a "multi-faith" group that's been helping organise this spiritual fight against coal.
The group's open letter kicked off a bit of a back and forth. In response, the MCA wrote its own letter.
The coal lobby said fossil fuels were going to lift millions of people out of poverty (a constant mantra from the industry ), that coal plants weren't as dirty as they used to be and that "the Australian energy production sector does not receive 'fossil fuel' subsidies".
ARCC wrote back. There were some fundamental flaws in the coal lobbyists' arguments over poverty. It was "simply not true" that fossil fuels didn't get subsidies. The letter went on:
The fossil fuel industry has not demonstrated the required moral imagination and courage to set aside self-interest and join the wider community to address climate change for the sake of the common good. In fact it has steadfastly set itself against the direction of the tide and appears to be ignoring its responsibility for the well-being of the earth and its inhabitants.
Thea Ormerod, the chair of ARRCC, says the group has been working to encourage religious groups and churches to divest their money from fossil fuel firms.
She says while the coal industry claims it will be around for many decades, the religious group too is "in this for the long haul".
The group's members and associates have also started to engage in civil disobedience, centred on the expansion of the Maules Creek coal mine in northern New South Wales. This misbehaviour continues a long tradition of faith groups getting involved in such acts, Ormerod says.
If anything, our conviction has been growing that the greatest damage Australia is doing to global climate systems is through our coal and gas exports. That Australia continues with expansionary plans amounts to willful neglect of our collective moral responsibility. Thus, our resistance must continue. What is at stake is, firstly, the life chances of those in developing countries at the front line of climate impacts and secondly, humanity's long-term survival. Other species with which we share this planet are also under threat.
While "laws should be respected" Ormerod, a practicing Catholic, says "there are circumstances in which individuals may decide, in good conscience, to peacefully disobey a legal authority".
In Australia, she says this legal authority was "aligned with forces of destruction". Options to shift to renewable sources of energy were being consistently downplayed.
All the world's religions have teachings about respecting the Earth, and about finding happiness in right relationships rather than material gain. We believe influential people in government and mining in Australia are taking our country in entirely the wrong direction.
Professor Colin Butler, of the University of Canberra's health faculty, was arrested last month at the site of the Maules Creek mine. Chains were involved.
Butler, a Buddhist and a contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , was at the ARRCC-organised protest at the mine. He's due in court in January to face charges of trespass and an offence in relation to mining equipment. He told me:
Conventional academic actions - papers, talks at conferences, editing books etc - are not enough to deeply engage with a sufficient number of the Australian community. Civil disobedience is needed, just as it was for the suffragette movement or to drive the British from India. My Buddhist belief was central. I took the bodhisattva vows almost 40 years ago, as a young man. That led to my decision to study medicine, then public health, to co-found our NGO Benevolent Organisation for Development, Health & Insight and now this. I see it as all linked. The bodhisattva vows are to try to use one's life to help others, irrespective of their religion, caste or wealth etc.
Amen, shanti, and all that.
LOAD-DATE: December 5, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
138 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 5, 2014 Friday 5:00 PM GMT
Adapting to a warmer climate could cost almost three times as much as thought, says UN report;
Rich countries need to give more to plug huge funding gap and help developing nations adapt to drought, flooding and heatwaves caused by climate change, says UN report
BYLINE: Dan Collyns, Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 728 words
Adapting to a warmer world will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and up to three times as much as previous estimates, even if global climate talks manage to keep temperature rises below dangerous levels, warns a report by the UN.
The first United Nations Environment Programme (Unep) 'Adaptation Gap Report' shows a significant funding gap after 2020 unless more funds from rich countries are pumped in to helping developing nations adapt to the droughts, flooding and heatwaves expected to accompany climate change.
"The report provides a powerful reminder that the potential cost of inaction carries a real price tag. Debating the economics of our response to climate change must become more honest," said Achim Steiner, Unep's executive director, as ministers from nearly 200 countries prepare to join the high level segment of UN climate talks in Lima, Peru, next week.
"We owe it to ourselves but also to the next generation, as it is they who will have to foot the bill."
Without further action on cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the report warns, the cost of adaptation will soar even further as wider and more expensive action is needed to protect communities from the extreme weather brought about by climate change.
Delegates from the Alliance of Small Islands States at the UN climate conference in Lima, which opened on Monday, are already feeling those impacts. They have appealed for adaptation funds for "loss and damage" as their homelands' very existence is threatened by rising sea levels.
"We're keen to see the implementation of the Green Climate Fund - we're still waiting," Netatua Pelesikoti, director of the climate change office at the Secretariat of the Pacific Environment Programme, referring to a fund set up to hope poorer countries cope with global warming.
"The trickle down to each government in the Pacific is very slow but we can't abandon the process at this stage," said the Tongan delegate.
Rich countries have pledged $9.7bn to the Green Climate Fund but the figure is well short of the minimum target of $100bn each year by 2020.
The Adaptation Gap Report said adaptation costs could climb to $150bn by 2025/2030 and $250-500bn per year by 2050, even based on the assumption that emissions are cut to keep temperature rises below rises of 2C above pre-industrial levels, as governments have previously agreed.
However, if emissions continue rising at their current rate - which would lead to temperature rises well above 2C - adaptation costs could hit double the worst-case figures, the report warned.
"This startling report opens up a window on to a nightmarish future, where the global economy is crippled and the most vulnerable countries are even further disadvantaged," said Sandeep Chamling Rai, WWF's senior global adaptation policy advisor. "This is not a gap, it's an abyss. We can avoid falling into it, but we're running out of time."
"The report leaves no doubt, adaptation must be at the heart of a long-term agreement developed here in Lima. Communities around the world are drastically unprepared for the costly impacts of climate change, which is already destroying lives and livelihoods every day," said Jan Kowalzig, policy advisor for Oxfam, urging negotiators to scale up funding to meet the $100bn annual commitment.
David Waskow, director of the International Climate Initiative at the World Resources Institute, said the $9.7bn raised by the Green Climate Fund was a "key threshold" but added that developed nations' funding should extend beyond the fund, engaging "large international companies and even small and medium-sized companies."
"On adaptation there hasn't been enough funding and most estimates show that less than 20% of climate finance has gone to help countries adapt to climate change," he added.
Su Wei, the head of China's climate delegation, said the Green Climate Fund pledges were far from adequate and told Reuters that he was critical of Australia's refusal to contribute to the fund, saying contributing should be a "legal obligation for all developed country parties".
Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, last month ruled out contributing to the fund, saying his government was giving aid through other channels.
Figures on global financial flows relating to climate action were published for the first time on Wednesday. They stood at between $340 and $650bn in 2011-2012, the UN said.
LOAD-DATE: December 5, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
139 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 5, 2014 Friday 2:56 PM GMT
Maxine Peake to take lead in new Royal Court play How to Hold Your Breath;
Star returns to the theatre in the wake of her acclaimed Hamlet, while the climate-change play 2071 will also be back for three performances
SECTION: STAGE
LENGTH: 274 words
Following her acclaimed performance in Manchester earlier this year as Hamlet, Maxine Peake is to return to the stage for How to Hold Your Breath, a new work by Zinnie Harris. It opens at the Royal Court in London on 4 February.
The play "dives into our recent European history, providing an epic look at the true cost of our principles and how we live now," according to the theatre, whose artistic director Vicky Featherstone will direct the production.
Peake appeared at the Court in the 2002 production Mother Teresa Is Dead. Featherstone and Harris have worked together before, on a National Theatre of Scotland production of Harris's play The Wheel in 2011. As well as numerous plays, Harris has written episodes of Spooks as well as forthcoming Agatha Christie BBC adaptation Partners in Crime, which stars David Walliams and will air in 2015 as part of the celebrations for the 125th anniversary of Christie's birth.
The Royal Court has also announced that their staging of 2071, in which scientist Chris Rapley outlines the challenges presented by climate change, will return for three more performances. The production blends lecture with drama - Michael Billington observed that "some will argue this is not really theatre," but described it in a five-star review as being "better than good: it is necessary".
The Guardian has recently completed a series of filmed microplays in collaboration with the Royal Court, inspired by conversations between journalists and theatre practitioners, and covering everything from education to food banks to the poignancy of mixtapes. You can see the final play below, and head here to watch them all.
LOAD-DATE: December 5, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
140 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 5, 2014 Friday 12:33 PM GMT
COP20: Peru must give indigenous people means to combat climate change;
Climate talks in Lima can save the Amazon rainforest by recognising rights of its best protectors
BYLINE: Dan Collyns in Lima
SECTION: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS NETWORK
LENGTH: 898 words
Peru is home to the second largest block of Amazon rainforest after Brazil and has promising forest protection schemes (including REDD+ ) in four national parks. But the country has a poor record for fighting deforestation, with rampant illegal mining and logging, slash and burn agriculture and insufficient land titling for indigenous groups.
Tropical rainforests play a crucial role in the health of our planet, especially as carbon sinks. Their importance is highlighted further given the drastic emissions reductions recommended by last month's report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. International donors seem prepared to lay down large sums to protect forests, yet their future still hangs in the balance
At the UN Climate Change summit in September, Peru signed a $300m (£191m) deal with Norway to reduce net deforestation to zero by 2021, with the aim of cutting greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Peru committed to increase by five million hectares the land titled to indigenous peoples and to respect their territorial rights enshrined in the Consultation with Indigenous Peoples Law (guaranteed in the International Labour Organisation's Convention 169 ).
The deal was welcomed by Julia Urrunaga, the Environmental Investigation Agency 's director for Peru. However, she pointed out that Peru's government announced this year it would open up the same amount of land for forest concessions on the back of a new law which seeks to attract investment to the slowing economy.
At the centre of the debate about how to best protect Peru's 73m hectares of Amazon rainforest are the indigenous people who inhabit it.
The anti-logging campaigner Edwin Chota and three other Ashéninka native leaders were killed in Peru's Ucayali region in September over land they had spent a decade trying to secure for their community. At least 57 activists have been killed in Peru since 2002, making it the fourth most dangerous country to be an environmental defender.
For Ergilia Rengifo, the widow of Jorge Ríos, one of the leaders, it was clear: "We are the guardians of the forest. Not only for us but also for all. We make sure to keep the water clean, the air clean. Why don't they value that? Why don't they give us the title we have been asking for 12 years now?"
But Peru's President Ollanta Humala doesn't see it that way: "I don't agree with labelling them as guardians of the forest; for that the state should hire park guards," he told the Guardian in a press conference. "I think that's reducing their importance to simply forest guardians. I believe those communities need development."
A growing body of evidence links community forest rights with lower carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation and degradation. "More governments and the climate community are recognising the fact that if you want to stop deforestation the most important thing to do is recognise land rights," said Andy White, coordinator of the Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI).
An RRI-commissioned report conducted in eight tropical forest countries reveals that more than 93% of concessions involve land that is inhabited by indigenous peoples and local communities. The total amount of land handed over by governments to the private sector for mining, logging, oil and gas drilling, and large-scale agriculture includes at least 40% of Peru and 30% of Indonesia.
So what can be done to protect the Amazon, and hand land back to its best guardians? Alberto Pizango, leader of Peru's largest federation of native communities AIDESEP, believes that Peru's hosting of the UN Framework Climate Change Conference (COP20) is the last chance to change that paradigm under the umbrella of climate change mitigation. He is asking for 1,070 native Amazon communities to be given pending land titles in an area totaling 20m hectares. A "guarantee", he said, that there would be "no more deforestation (in Peru) causing global warming".
Side events at COP20, such as this weekend's Global Landscape Forum will look at the practical reality of how to use land strategically, factoring in business and community interests. Speakers will include Helen Clark, the former prime minister of New Zealand, and the UN's third special rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz.
The $300 agreement between Norway and Peru should mirror the $150m deal made between Norway and Liberia to enact a moratorium on new logging contracts and overhaul existing logging concessions that are operating illegally, the EIA said in a statement.
"There is no reason to wait until 2017," said Urrunaga, referring to the land titling deadline outlined in the statement of intent between the two countries. "Norway should ensure this considerable sum guarantees that communal indigenous land titles start to be granted now and before other land uses are allocated, to avoid further conflict."
Read more stories like this :
· Land rights in Latin America: where are the voices of indigenous women?· Development and indigenous peoples: creating community-owned solutions· Counting trees to the save woods: using data to map deforestation· Advertisement feature: Celebrating solutions for climate change
Join our community of development professionals and humanitarians. Follow @GuardianGDP on Twitter.
LOAD-DATE: December 5, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
141 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 5, 2014 Friday 4:14 AM GMT
St Louis aims to ease social tensions as it joins 100 Resilient Cities programme;
The 35 newly announced 'resilient cities' include six successful US applicants, the first two Chinese cities, plus London, Paris, Sydney, Barcelona and MilanThe new resilient cities - in pictures
BYLINE: Oliver Milman in Singapore
SECTION: CITIES
LENGTH: 674 words
Strife-torn St Louis is among 35 cities around the world inducted on Wednesday into a $100m programme designed to strengthen their resilience to natural disaster, and enhance their ability to tackle issues such as violence, social exclusion and transport congestion.
The US city, which counts the troubled community of Ferguson among its suburbs, is judged to suffer from "high poverty and high crime rates". According to St Louis officials, upgrading infrastructure and improving public health and education will help ease social tensions there.
A total of 35 metropolitan areas have been added to the 100 Resilient Cities programme, an initiative funded by the Rockefeller Foundation which allocates financial and logistical support to each chosen city, including a dedicated "chief resilience officer". The first 33 cities in the programme were named last December.
A total of 331 cities across 94 countries applied to be part of this year's allocation. A team of judges was assigned by 100 Resilient Cities to choose places that have "demonstrated a dedicated commitment to building their own capacities to prepare for, withstand, and bounce back rapidly from shocks and stresses".
The second tranche of cities was named at a one-day conference in Singapore, where delegates also discussed the major threats facing cities over the coming decades: natural disasters, social unrest, economic inequality, access to healthcare, management of water and freedom of movement.
Eight Asian and Middle-Eastern cities - Phnom Penh, Deyang, Bangalore, Amman, Huangshi, Chennai, Singapore and Toyama - were chosen, along with four African cities: Arusha, Accra, Kigali and Enugu. Other successful applicants include London, Barcelona, Paris, Boston and Wellington.
Athens was chosen after a period in which the Rockefeller Foundation noted that unemployment has averaged over 50% for young people. More than a third of Athens' buildings are vulnerable to earthquakes, and the city is also baking in increasing heatwaves. But the foundation said the city is making "significant efforts" to expand welfare and healthcare services.
Also in Europe, Paris - while a "global icon" - has experienced community segregation due to urban gentrification, and its public transport system is under growing pressure, the foundation said. Lisbon is also dealing with creaking infrastructure, with city officials reporting that they are looking to do more to mitigate the impact of climate change.
Chicago is making a shift towards a technology-driven economy and is making strides to prepare itself for blizzards and floods, the foundation said. Phnom Penh suffers from regular energy blackouts and deteriorating air quality due to soaring car ownership. Meanwhile residents of Sydney, one of the world's more liveable cities, are paying soaring electricity bills due to obsolete infrastructure and are at increasing risk from climate change-driven heat waves.
Climate change, which the World Bank has warned poses a "serious threat to urban infrastructure, quality of life and entire urban systems", is a particular point of focus for the project. It is estimated that extreme weather events, which are increasingly fuelled by climate change, have already cost the world economy $2.5 trillion this century, with much of the damage caused in cities.
The newly announced 'resilient cities'
North America: Montreal (Canada); Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Pittsburgh, St Louis, Tulsa (all US); San Juan (Puerto Rico); Juarez (Mexico); Santiago de los Caballeros (Dominican Republic). South America: Cali (Colombia); Santa Fe (Argentina); Santiago (Chile). Europe: Athens, Thessaloniki (both Greece); Barcelona (Spain); Belgrade (Serbia); Lisbon (Portugal); London (UK); Milan (Italy); Paris (France). Asia: Toyama (Japan); Chennai, Bangalore (both India); Deyang, Huangshi (both China); Singapore; Phnom Penh (Cambodia); Amman (Jordan). Africa: Accra (Ghana); Arusha (Tanzania); Kigali (Rwanda); Enugu (Nigeria). Oceania: Sydney (Australia); Wellington (New Zealand).
LOAD-DATE: December 5, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
142 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Dot Earth)
December 5, 2014 Friday
The Soft Path to a Climate Agreement, From Lima to Paris
BYLINE: ANDREW C. REVKIN
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 1103 words
HIGHLIGHT: As long ago as 1991, there were calls to pursue “soft,” not binding, steps toward a global climate treaty. Talks are progressing now because this shift has occurred.
Needless to say, there's been a big and promising shift in tone and some substance in global warming diplomacy of late - led by the paired pledges of China and the United States to intensify efforts to curtail heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions. Other countries, including gas-rich Malaysia, have promised to act on climate.
No one should presume things will be easy in Lima, Peru, where negotiators are gathering through next week to shape a global climate agreement that could be finalized in Paris a year from now. There's strong - and to a large extent justified - resistance to new carbon commitments in India, for example, where hundreds of millions of people lack access to any modern energy sources, let alone clean ones. And there will be intensifying demands for billions to flow from industrialized countries that spent decades building wealth burning fossil fuels to poor, vulnerable ones. Given continuing economic troubles in many developed countries, those demands will be hard to meet.
Still, there are plenty of signs that there's room for a global accord to emerge, with every faction - from the poorest to the richest - finding a comfort zone thanks to the 24-year-old clause in the original climate treaty laying out nations' "common but differentiated responsibilities" (here's a great explainer from McGill's Center for International Sustainable Development Law).
As long ago as 1991, there were calls to pursue "soft," not internationally binding, steps toward a global climate treaty. Read these notes from a fascinating 1991 Harvard meeting on Negotiating a Global Climate Agreement to get the idea. (There are some excerpts below. I first wrote about that meeting in 2010.)
Talks are progressing now because this shift is in fact occurring.
John Upton has an informative piece on Climate Central that lays out the logic of non-binding success and also why some parties, particularly Europe, still resist:
As negotiators gather in Peru for a critical round of climate talks, U.S. delegates are straining to explain what they call a "counterintuitive" reality: For next year's global climate agreement to be effective, commitments made under it must not be legally binding.
Such an outcome would disappoint many, including the European Union's negotiating team, which says it will be pushing for binding commitments during the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change talks in Lima this week and next. America's negotiators are pushing for voluntary commitments.
The success of the next climate agreement, which is due to be finalized during talks in Paris one year from now, may hinge on American negotiators winning in this latest spat in a long-simmering quarrel with their European counterparts.
It's a pretty good bet that Europe will - excuse the term - soften, given the momentum built by the year-long process that produced the American announcement with China and particularly because failure in the heart of Europe is unimaginable.
The new emphasis on a soft approach is quite a contrast to the tone in the run-up to the tumultuous Copenhagen talks in 2009, when inflated "seal the deal" expectations - partially driven by the election of President Obama - led to the idea there could be new international, legally-binding gas limits like those tried in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol - which has proved a dead-end document.
Yvo de Boer, who held the chair in the climate talks through Copenhagen and now runs the Global Green Growth Institute, made the point this way in an interview with Bloomberg's The Grid back in June:
Q: Is it still realistic for climate negotiators to want an "international, legally binding" treaty? Was it ever realistic if the U.S. always opposed one?
A: If a country enters into a legally-binding commitment and they back away from it, what do you do? Arrest the prime minister? "Nationally legally-binding" is much stronger. I think we've moved beyond Kyoto-style agreements. Hopefully in Paris we will see countries make ambitious pledges to limit or reduce emissions. [Read the rest.]
Debates will (and should) continue over how much of what's being pledged is simply enshrining energy and pollution trends (both in the United States and countries like China) that are already being driven by other factors (cheap shale gas and growing energy efficiency here, smog concerns in China, etc.).
And much of what is being pledged, despite Yvo de Boer's hope for legally-binding actions at the national level, is still much more like putty than steel, as Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School noted (in the context of United States law) on his Lawfare blog earlier this year.
But momentum matters, as does the rising trust among parties as they split from a faction-against-faction approach (remember the Group of 77 plus China bloc?) to finding common threads, one on one.
The summary of that 1991 meeting on climate agreements, written by Henry Lee, who's still at Harvard, have some relevant sections, including this one:
Perhaps the real problem is not agreeing on a treaty, but building nations' confidence in other nations' capacity and willingness to cut emissions. We are skeptical about whether Brazil will do it, and they are skeptical about us. And as in the recent U.S.-Japan decisions over Structural Impediments to trade, if we both can do it, we will both be better off.
Overcoming this blockage will either take an adjustment of our notion of sovereignty where implementation is concerned, or a focus on unilateral action. U.S. unilateral action could set an example for the world, and help to structure the international process so as to increase confidence. If the U.S., for example, significantly increased transportation fuel prices, then this action would both increase our influence in pushing for good international deals, and exempt us from charges of obstruction when we refuse to sign a bad one.
There is a lot of latent cooperativeness, looking for a structure in which to express itself. This is what international legal measures, soft or hard, should do - give an enabling structure to this latent willingness to help.
Obama has moved far more on power plants and auto efficiency than fuel prices (which are headed down of course), which simply shows that expectations and options evolve over time. But his administration's domestic power plant rules and simultaneous interaction with China reflect how this dynamic can work.
There's much more at the Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, including this new paper: "A Pre-Lima Scorecard for Evaluating which Countries are Doing Their Fair Share in Pledged Carbon Cuts."
LOAD-DATE: December 5, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
143 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 4, 2014 Thursday 11:17 PM GMT
Green activists from Ecuador harassed by police on way to climate summit;
Activists say their presence at the meeting in Peru would be embarrassing to President Rafael Correa, who wants to drill for oil in the Amazon
BYLINE: Dan Collyns in Lima
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 556 words
A group of Ecuadorian environmental activists travelling to the UN Climate Change conference in neighbouring Peru were stopped and harassed at least six times by police who eventually seized their bus, members of the group have told the Guardian.
The activists claim that they have been obstructed because the Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa wants to avoid potentially embarrassing protests at the climate conference over his plan to drill for oil in Yasuni, an Amazon reserve and one of the most biodiverse places on earth.
"We believe our presence in the summit would not benefit Correa, because we will question and denounce what he's doing with Yasuni," said Mateo Martínez, a member of the Yasunidos campaign group, who was on the bus.
The bus, carrying 17 activists, was first stopped by the police at about 2am on Tuesday morning while travelling from the Ecuadorian capital Quito to Guayaquil. The stops continued throughout the day with the involvement of customs officers, transit police and immigration officials, said Patricio Chavez, who was also in the group.
Chávez said the second time they were stopped was outside Guayaquil, where they were expected to give a press conference about their campaign against against oil prospecting in Yasuni.
The heavily-graffitied bus, known as the ' Climate Caravan ', was then stopped at least three more times before being impounded and towed to Guayaquil, reportedly for not having a licence for be used for private profit.
"The Climate Caravan bus was not stopped once in its 10-month journey from Mexico, even in Ecuador, until we made it public that Yasunidos would be joining the climate change activists to go to the COP in Lima," said Chavez, part of the Yasunidos campaign group.
"We weren't given any official explanation only that it was routine procedure but extraofficially police officers told us they said they had been given an order from above."
"There was no physical mistreatment but our group, especially the women, felt intimidated by the constant detentions," he added.
"The only possible explanation faced with such absurd and appalling allegations points to Ecuadorian government's fear of our criticism of its decision to open Yasuni national park up to oil exploration," the group added in a statement.
The harassment was shared on social networks by activists on the bus, who tweeted updates and shared images of police stopping the bus.
Government officials say they stopped the bus because the driver did not have the correct documentation. The country's interior minister tweeted an image of the driver's US license, with the comment: "We will not allow vehicular movement of passengers without professional licenses. The responsibility belongs to everyone."
The Yasuni activists responded by posting a copy of a document granting the driver permission to drive in Ecuador.
Last August, Rafeal Correa scrapped a pioneering scheme, the Yasuni Ishpingo-Tambococha-Tiputini (ITT) initiative, to keep oil in the ground under a corner of the Yasuni national park in return for donations from the international community.
He said only $13m (£8m) of the $3.6bn goal had been given, and that "the world has failed us", giving the green light to drilling.
Additional reporting by Eduardo Varas and Marcela Ribadeneira
LOAD-DATE: December 4, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
144 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 4, 2014 Thursday 6:15 PM GMT
Church of England challenges BP and Shell over global warming;
Planned shareholder resolution is a 'vital opportunity to influence companies' climate change strategy', says investment chief
BYLINE: Adam Vaughan
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 667 words
The Church of England has challenged BP and Shell, two of the world's biggest oil companies, to take responsibility for their carbon footprints and limit their contribution to global warming.
The church will submit a shareholder resolution calling on the energy companies, which are two of the top five investments in its £9bn investment fund, to take action to "adapt their businesses over the long term for a low carbon economy".
The intervention comes as ministers from nearly 200 countries prepare to meet next week in Lima, Peru, for UN climate talks to lay the draft text for a carbon-cutting deal next year, and as the church itself comes under pressure to relinquish its investments in fossil fuels.
Edward Mason, the head of responsible investment at the Church Commissioners for England, said in a blogpost that, as shareholders, the church had a vital opportunity to influence companies' climate change strategy.
"We have chosen to file shareholder resolutions at BP and Shell because they have the biggest carbon footprints of all the companies listed on the London Stock Exchange, and they are yet to achieve A ratings (they are both rated B) [on the Carbon Disclosure Project's ranking].
"Of course oil and gas companies have a particular responsibility because the fuels they produce contribute to climate change when they are burned," he wrote.
He said the resolutions were supportive, but would stretch the companies. "The idea is to give all of the shareholders of both companies the opportunity to signal that, like us, they want to see BP and Shell adapt their businesses over the long term for a low carbon economy. We want the companies to be sustainably profitable."
The church has come under pressure from campaigners, including the high-profile US author and activist Bill McKibben, to divest from fossil fuels. It has about £101m invested in Shell and £91.9m in BP. McKibben told the Guardian last month that the CoE was dragging its heels on divestment, even though it has been encouraged by the retired Anglican bishop Desmond Tutu.
"Their response so far has been to say that they'll study it until late 2015, which means they will have examined it for a period slightly longer than Jesus's public ministry. It's not exactly what Desmond Tutu had in mind," McKibben said.
In response to the church, a BP spokesman said: "We have had constructive discussions with CCLA [church fund managers] and are aware that they intend to file a resolution for our AGM in April 2015. We will carefully consider it and respond appropriately before the meeting."
Shell said it was not commenting on the church's move, but in an article in the Times last month, the company's CEO, Ben van Beurden, said that rising energy demand meant a "pragmatic" look at climate change meant recognising the world would need oil and gas into the second half of this century and beyond.
he added: "As chief executive of a company that believes in the value of innovation, I also know that, collectively, we must give ourselves every chance of allowing technology to help [on climate change].
"Innovation is no silver bullet but, as we navigate what will be a decades-long transition away from a fossil fuels-dependent energy system, new technologies can play a crucial and transformative role. One example is CCS [carbon capture and storage] - capturing carbon dioxide from man-made sources such as power stations and storing it safely deep underground."
The resolution to be submitted by the church calls for BP and Shell to "direct that routine annual reporting from 2016 includes further information about: ongoing operational emissions management; asset portfolio resilience to the International Energy Agency's (IEA's) scenarios; low-carbon energy research and development (R&D) and investment strategies; relevant strategic key performance indicators (KPIs) and executive incentives; and public policy positions relating to climate change."
Shareholders will vote on the resolutions next spring.
LOAD-DATE: December 4, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
145 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 4, 2014 Thursday 6:06 PM GMT
UN secretary-general says no plans to reduce sustainable development goals;
In his report, Ban Ki-moon backs the 17 goals and 169 targets proposed by the UN working group, despite the difficulty member states may have in communicating them
BYLINE: Liz Ford
SECTION: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT
LENGTH: 867 words
The UN secretary-general has ruled out any immediate cut in the number of proposed sustainable development goals with the launch on Thursday of his synthesis report, The Road to Dignity by 2030 (pdf).
In the report, Ban Ki-moon reaffirmed the 17 goals and 169 targets proposed by the UN open working group that will come into force after the millennium development goals expire next year.
Some member states, including the UK and Japan, have expressed concern that the large number of goals and targets would prove a challenge to implement, particularly in poorer countries, and sell to the public. Many people would be unable to recite the contents of the eight MDGs, which have been in place for almost 15 years.
In September, David Cameron told the audience of an event at the UN general assembly that he wanted a maximum of 12 goals, saying there was "a real danger they will end up sitting on a bookshelf, gathering dust" if there were 17.
Ban told reporters that the final decision on the number was up to the member states but gave no hint that he expected the number to change. "The possibility of maintaining the 17 goals, with some rearrangement, is up to member states," he said. "I am encouraged that my report received very positive and favourable responses."
When asked if the name of the goals could be changed to something more snappy, Ban said there were no plans to adopt something new, but added there was "still a nine-months negotiation process awaiting".
Ban did acknowledge the difficulty governments could have in effectively communicating the content of the goals. In an attempt to help governments, the secretary general has banded the goals into six "essential elements", which he hoped would help guide member states in their negotiations on the final targets.
Ban said the elements - dignity, people, planet, prosperity, justice and partnership - "were not an attempt to cluster or replace the SDGs, rather they are meant to offer conceptual guidance for the work ahead".
The report highlighted the importance of the internatioal conference on financing for development, taking place in Addis Ababa in July next year, for agreeing commitments for paying for the implementation of the goals.
Other key moments next year will be the special summit on sustainable development at the UN general assembly in September, where the goals are expected to be adopted, and the UNFCCC meeting in Paris in Decembe r, where member states have pledged to adopt an agreement to tackle climate change.
Ban said adequate resources, the technical know-how and the political will were crucial to create a transformative vision for the future. "I continue to urge member states to continue to keep ambitions high. We must do all it takes to provide hope for people and the planet," he said at the report's launch in New York.
Helen Dennis, senior adviser on poverty and inequality at Christian Aid, called the report a "rallying call to governments to aim high with the new global development goals. It rightly makes it clear that business as usual is not an option, and puts proper emphasis on the importance of equitable and sustainable development. The secretary-general emphasises the shared nature of challenges like inequality and climate change and underlines the need for universal goals which will apply in all countries, including the UK."
Michael Elliott, president the advocacy group ONE, said: "The UN secretary-general's report is a welcome drive to kickstart the global effort to end extreme poverty by 2030, and we echo his calls for an ambitious plan to finance the next chapter for development."
Margaret Batty, director of global policy and campaigns at WaterAid said: "Today's report takes us one step closer to a landmark agreement for a world where extreme poverty has been eliminated and safe water and sanitation are available to all.
"We welcome the inclusion of water, sanitation and hygiene within the six elements identified by the secretary-general and emphasise how important it will be to achieve universal access to these essential needs."
However, Stephen Hale, Oxfam's deputy advocacy and campaigns director, criticised the report for not presenting a stronger message about climate change and inequality.
"Oxfam is disappointed that the UN has not made far stronger proposals to address extreme economic inequality and climate change in its new report. The under-emphasis of both issues is a grave missed opportunity," he said. "These are two major injustices that are guaranteed to undermine the efforts of millions of people seeking to escape poverty and hunger over the next 15 years."
Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah, head of Civicus: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, said the report captured many of the key issues raised by his members. "The central place given to tackling inequality is a great step forward, there's an admirable attempt to bring climate change concerns into the development agenda and the need to protect civic space is underlined," he said. "The key challenge now will be to get governments to agree to ambitious, game-changing targets for the new goals and, importantly, to put in place robust accountability mechanisms."
LOAD-DATE: December 4, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
146 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 4, 2014 Thursday 3:48 PM GMT
Green news roundup: hottest year, Lima climate talks and chameleons;
The week's top environment news stories and green events · Sign up here to get the briefing delivered to your inbox
BYLINE: Environment editor
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 295 words
Environment news
· 2014 set to be world's hottest year ever· Lima climate change talks best chance for a generation, say upbeat diplomats· Israel nature reserve oil spill 'one of country's worst environmental disasters'· World's largest cave in Vietnam threatened by cable car· Eating less meat essential to curb climate change, says report· Keystone XL opponent Bill McKibben steps down as head of 350.org· E.On's switch to renewables is a sign of things to come, say experts· Toiletry chemicals linked to testicular cancer and male infertility cost EU millions, report says
On the blogs
· Locals fearful of suspected killer tiger released near their village in India· Want a green energy future? Nationalise Canada's oil industry· Volcanoes may be responsible for most of the global surface warming slowdown· Will Australia be the great coal defender at Lima climate talks?· The £2.3bn for flood defences in England is good news but still not enough· Brazil's Javari valley threatened by Peruvian oil, warn tribes· Coral Triangle could be last bastion for planet's beleaguered reefs
Multimedia
· International Cheetah Day - in pictures· The hottest year ever around the world - in pictures· The week in wildlife - in pictures· GuardianWitness assignments
Features and comment
· How a ruby-red Texas town turned against fracking· Carbon emissions: past, present and future - interactive· Scientists plan to go in search of the world's rarest chameleon· 'They say that in 30 years maybe Kiribati will disappear'· Maria Eagle: Communities at risk of flooding won't buy this spin from David Cameron
...And finally
· Soil Association has disowned 'O word', say resigning trusteesOrganisation accused of losing its focus on organic food and farming and adopting a corporate mindset
LOAD-DATE: December 4, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
147 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 4, 2014 Thursday 10:51 AM GMT
Australian companies fail to identify sustainability risks and opportunities;
A new study of ASX 50 companies finds only a handful are dealing with sustainability issues strategically
BYLINE: Victoria Whitaker
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 972 words
In an interview earlier this year with a corporate sustainability director of a leading Australian corporation, I had hoped to discuss the value of sustainability reporting. What was said I've heard on several occasions, but it still caught me off guard and raised a number of questions:
I understand the role of sustainability reporting as a proxy for good governance and moral seriousness but I think, if all organisations were completely honest about it, it's a burden and the value is not proportionate to the burden.
Institutional investors in Australia are increasingly demanding that companies are transparent and accountable for their sustainability risks. Over the past year both the Australian Securities Investment Commission and the Australian Securities Exchange have begun asking listed companies to disclose their sustainability risks. They know that these affect a company's bottom line.
There is now evidence to show that sustainability-related crises are strategic risks that have greater impact on company value than operational and financial risks. This is the result of the failure of management to adequately prepare and respond to a situation and its aftermath, resulting in a loss of investor confidence and decreased share price.
This year, the World Economic Forum's Global Risks 2014, found that of the top 10 global risks of the highest concern to global business leaders during 2014, seven were sustainability-related: water crises (3); income disparity (4); climate change (5); extreme weather (6); governance failures (7); food crises (8); and political and social instability (10).
It appears to me that sustainability risks are managed largely in the same way as other risks; they are included on risk registers, their likelihood and impact are assessed and strategies are created to manage them. So why then are some sustainability risks left off? Why isn't climate change recognised as a productivity risk (as opposed to a regulatory risk) on every risk register worldwide, when clearly scientists and many economists expect that it will have major impacts across the global economy?
The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), together with KPMG Australia and CPA Australia, investigated how ASX 50 companies identify with sustainability risks and why. The resulting report, released this week, From Tactical to Strategic - How Australian Businesses Create Value from Sustainability (pdf) found that there is significant opportunity for Australian companies to be much more strategic in their approaches to sustainability and extract more value for the business.
We found that most deal with sustainability issues tactically - compliance and efficiency drivers dominate. Regarding urbanisation for example, companies tend to focus only on waste management and not infrastructure needs or social isolation. Regarding wealth, companies focus more on philanthropy and not the growing middle class. There are only a handful of ASX 50 companies that think about these issues in their complexity and understand their strategic sustainability risk exposures and opportunities.
Most of the companies investigated were failing to articulate the full value of sustainability activities for their business. The few leading companies that had a better understanding of their risks and opportunities in new products, markets and business models were those talking to investors, customers, employees, suppliers, regulators and communities.
For example, by working closer with its communities and stakeholders, property owner and developer Stockland is developing liveability metrics to help it benchmark and measure the quality of life and satisfaction within its communities.
In 2007, food retailer Woolworths established its Fresh Food Future programme to enhance the sustainability of Australian agriculture and safeguard Australia's food security. Of the A$9m (£4.8m) spent in the five years to end fiscal year 13, two thirds were invested into 180 farm to adopt innovative farming methods, while the remaining has been invested in developing talent and leadership in agriculture to circumvent its ageing workforce.
To build the capacity of people and businesses to better withstand future natural disasters, the Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience and Safer Communities brings together ASX50 finance companies, Westpac and IAG, with the Australian Red Cross, Investa Property Group, Munich Re and Optus, to advocate for safer and more resilient communities in extreme weather events.
For these companies, the insights from stakeholders and an understanding of the sustainability context are framing their business cases for acting on sustainability issues. Understanding issues from their stakeholders' perspective helps them identify impact points and solutions which in turn creates value for the business and better prepares it for the global forces that are likely to be felt by every business worldwide over the next 20 years.
Victoria Whitaker is head of the Global Reporting Initiative's Focal Point Australia
Read more stories like this:
Australia divestment war shows investment is now the main climate change battleground
Financial systems must consider extreme weather, or risk condemning millions to die
Brought to you by EY: The digital banking promise
The finance hub is funded by EY. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled 'brought to you by'. Find out more here.
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: December 4, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
148 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 4, 2014 Thursday 9:53 AM GMT
'They say that in 30 years maybe Kiribati will disappear';
On the tiny coral islands of Kiribati sandbags hold back the rising sea and drought means no fresh water. For the Pacific Islanders living at the sharp edge of climate change any result in Lima will be too little, too late
BYLINE: Karl Mathiesen in South Tarawa
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 746 words
The highest point on South Tarawa, the capital island of Kiribati, survives behind a wall of sandbags and rock. It lies so close to the sea that one of the agile kids who make up almost half the population could leap from the top and land in the water three metres below.
Across the Pacific in Lima, Peru, climate negotiators this week are drafting a deal that will control how high the sea will rise around this thin strip of sand and coral and maybe stop the country from disappearing altogether. Yet for most I-Kiribati, climate change remains an abstract concern against the foreground of calamitous poverty they face each day.
More than half of this Pacific nation's 102,000 people live on impoverished South Tarawa. Huge families, often as many as 20 to a home, live in cobbled-together dwellings amid coconut palms, pigs and piles of rubbish. There is no space nor privacy. The many who lack a toilet use the white sand beach. Children spend their days swimming in the electric blue lagoon, which doubles as a major fishing ground and open sewer.
It is the world's most scenic slum.
The island's drinking water is in perpetual crisis. Groundwater wells are polluted and increasingly salinated by rising seawater. Treated government water reaches some communities, but only runs for a few hours each week.
Batiri Tataio's family are fortunate enough to have a tin roof and tank for harvesting rainwater. But the nation is slipping into drought - it has rained just twice in the past two months.
"If there's no rain, no water. That means the babies have to drink the well water and we have to boil it and boil it," she says. In September an outbreak of diarrhoea killed more than 20 children in just two weeks. Children here are nine times more likely to die before their first birthday than in the UK.
Tataio moved from the island of Nikunau so her nine children and growing brood of grandchildren could attend school. Outer islanders have no ancestral land claims in overcrowded Tarawa so Tataio's family have built their own island from coral, rock and sand. Their toilet empties directly into the surrounding lagoon.
It is hard to find jobs, says Tataio, and this limits the food available. Her family catch fish and sell them by the roadside to earn enough to get by. Fish and rice makes up the majority of the diet, supplemented by sugary food when people can afford it. 99.5% of I-Kiribati do not eat enough vegetables and almost a quarter suffer from diabetes.
The everyday indignities and debilitations of poverty make international diplomacy and the conference halls of Lima seem abstract and quixotic. But poverty is perhaps the most important factor in determining whether a person will be killed or made homeless by climate change. The blow will fall hardest in places such as South Tarawa not simply because of geography, but because there are no resources here to defend against a more violent climate.
In his office at Parliament House, built on reclaimed land, Kiribati's president Anote Tong tells the Guardian that even if the Lima talks and next year's long hoped-for Paris agreement codify the most severe emissions reductions, it will have little relevance for the country.
"What strong action can happen in Paris?" he asks. "It doesn't matter for us because what is already in the atmosphere will ensure that the problem we are facing will continue to happen."
Tong is determined that at least some land and a remnant of Kiribati society will survive. But Kiribati's economy is 10,000 times smaller than the US and defending this fragile community will be expensive.
This is why the most vulnerable countries are demanding rich nations contribute more to the Green Climate Fund and honour their commitment to supply $100bn each year by 2020. The near-$10bn pledged to date is just two-thirds of the bare minimum stipulated by developing countries.
Yet the people here do not seem as angry at rich countries, as they perhaps have a right to be.
Speaking to Tataio, the reason becomes clear. "Climate change very hot. Only a few rains. When it's high tide we know that it's very high, higher than before," she says. Children are taught climate science in schools. But many older and less educated people have limited understanding of the causes of climate change.
Asked if she knows why the sea is rising, Tataio shakes her head and laughs. "They say that maybe in 30 years maybe Kiribati will disappear. But we don't know what's going to happen. I'm happy always."
LOAD-DATE: December 4, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
149 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 4, 2014 Thursday
Late Edition - Final
Missing Its Own Goals, Germany Renews Effort to Cut Carbon Emissions
BYLINE: By MELISSA EDDY; Nick Cumming-Bruce contributed reporting from Geneva.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 6
LENGTH: 903 words
BERLIN -- Germany has fallen behind in its ambitious goals for reducing carbon emissions. It is burning more coal than at any point since 1990. And German companies are complaining that the nation's energy policies are hurting their ability to compete globally.
But on Wednesday, Chancellor Angela Merkel's government said it was redoubling its efforts, proposing new measures to help it reach the emissions-reduction target for 2020 it set seven years ago when it undertook an aggressive effort to combat climate change.
The new plan was unveiled by a country eager to retain a leadership position in international talks to address the threat from global warming. The plan underscored Ms. Merkel's commitment despite the problems it has caused her at home.
The plan calls on Germans to cut an additional 62 million to 78 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions -- the annual output of about seven million German households. That would triple emission reductions from current levels, spreading the cuts across sectors like agriculture and automobiles.
The program, which would be established by laws to be passed by Parliament, rests on improved energy efficiency, with 3 billion euros, or $3.7 billion, in tax breaks and other incentives.
Roughly a third of the cuts are to come from the power industry, even as coal-fired plants continue to play an essential role.
Germany's predicament reflects the difficulty faced by modern economies in reducing carbon as an energy source. But polls show that most Germans favor reducing emissions.
''If we want to keep our promise, we need to close this gap, and that is what we are doing,'' Barbara Hendricks, Ms. Merkel's environment minister, said at a news conference on Wednesday.
Ms. Hendricks is to present Germany's position next week in Lima, Peru, to leaders who are working to create the basis for a new global agreement on emissions reductions ahead of a world summit in Paris next year. Last month, China and the United States, the world's two biggest polluters, announced plans to lower carbon emissions.
The World Meteorological Organization said Wednesday that 2014 was on track to be the warmest year on record. ''This is an important message for negotiators so that they know that decisions have to be taken quickly,'' Michel Jarraud, the organization's secretary general, said in Geneva. He added that the evidence linking human-generated carbon emissions to climate change was much stronger than it was 20 years ago, and a ''lack of knowledge is no longer an excuse for inaction.''
Ms. Merkel made her debut on the international stage as Germany's environment minister by marshaling support for the Kyoto agreement in 1997, and has made it clear that she wants Germany to remain at the forefront of efforts to combat climate change.
She helped rally the European Union's 28 leaders around the issue in October, and intends to use her country's turn at the Group of 7 summit meeting next year to push for a Paris accord.
But the German union that represents workers in the mining, chemical and energy industries warned Berlin that the latest round of cuts could affect jobs in the country's coal-rich and industrial regions.
Ahead of Wednesday's announcement, members of the union had gathered thousands of signatures demanding German leaders provide ''affordable electricity and good jobs.'' Sigmar Gabriel, the minister for economic affairs and energy, has pledged to give utilities free rein to decide where and how they make further emissions cuts, with an eye to unions' close ties to his center-left Social Democratic Party.
Last year, 45 percent of Germany's power came from hard coal and the soft brown coal known as lignite, the highest level since 2007, according to data from AG Energiebilanzen, a group of energy lobbying firms and economic research institutes. That compares with 25 percent of energy from renewable resources.
Since Germany began shutting down its 17 nuclear power plants, a drive that gained speed after the 2011 nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan, it has increasingly depended on coal-fired plants for the flow of power needed by the country's large industrial base. Its dependence on coal is the highest in nearly 25 years, when many of East Germany's worst-polluting factories and plants were shut down after reunification with the West.
Soft coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel to burn, is Germany's cheapest and most abundant natural resource. Hundreds of thousands of jobs depend on the lignite mines and the power industry they support, and workers are growing increasingly fearful that Germany's energy revolution will cost them their livelihoods.
Many of Germany's leading industries, like chemicals and aluminum, are based in the coal-rich Rhine region, contributing to Germany's post-World War II economic strength. But in recent years, energy-intensive companies have been looking abroad to expand their businesses.
Frank Löllgen, the head of the trade union's western North Rhine region, said the trend worried the 107,000 workers he represented. The union has been urging the government to remember energy's role in the economy's continuing the success it has had in recent years.
''We already are on the edge of what is possible,'' Mr. Löllgen said in an interview at his Düsseldorf office. ''Is it worth it if we as a country succeed in reaching our targets in reducing carbon emissions, but sacrifice good jobs and our industrial base?''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/world/europe/germany-carbon-emissions-environment.html
LOAD-DATE: December 4, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: A spike in coal use has hurt Chancellor Angela Merkel's goals for reducing carbon emissions. (PHOTOGRAPH BY INA FASSBENDER/REUTERS)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
150 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 4, 2014 Thursday
Late Edition - Final
A Pacific Isle, Radioactive and Forgotten
BYLINE: By MICHAEL B. GERRARD.
Michael B. Gerrard, the director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia, is the co-editor, with Gregory E. Wannier, of ''Threatened Island Nations: Legal Implications of Rising Seas and a Changing Climate.''
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR; Pg. 31
LENGTH: 867 words
THERE is no consistent air service to the coral atoll of Enewetak in the Marshall Islands, where the United States tested 67 nuclear weapons between 1946 and 1958. On my first trip to the capital, Majuro, in 2010, to study the danger posed there by the rising ocean, I managed to get on a special flight taking dignitaries to Enewetak for the dedication of a school. From there, I boarded a small boat to visit a nuclear waste dump that the world had all but forgotten.
The Marshall Islands are only about six feet above sea level. Its survival and that of other island nations are on the minds of negotiators gathering this week in Lima, Peru, for a United Nations climate change conference.
This place stands out for its misfortunes: ravaged first by radioactivity from tests conducted after World War II and, now, by the rising seas that threaten to swallow it.
When the boat reached a tiny island called Runit, we jumped out, crossed a narrow beach and walked through some shrub brush. A concrete dome about 350 feet across loomed ahead. I saw no signs, fences or guards. My guide walked up the shallow incline of the dome and stood on its top; impulsively I followed him. I wished I had brought a Geiger counter.
The United States had chosen this string of islands halfway between Hawaii and Australia for its nuclear tests; specifically the atolls of Bikini and Enewetak. Each is a thin broken circle of coral reefs surrounding a lagoon, the remnants of ancient volcanoes. In the 1970s the United States was thinking about granting independence to the country, which it did eventually, and was considering what to do about the mess the testing left behind.
Bikini was so radioactive that there was little hope of allowing its displaced population ever to return home. But the military studied how to clean up Enewetak so that at least some land could become habitable again. The Defense Department concluded that there was so much soil contaminated with cesium-137 and strontium-90 that the safest approach was to leave it alone and let it decay naturally. Both have half-lives of about 30 years.
But also left behind by the blasts was plutonium-239, which has a half-life of 24,000 years. With enough plutonium-239 in the right form, a bomb could be made. That is why the United States participated in a $150 million operation, completed in 2012, to secure and clean up the plutonium at a Soviet-era nuclear test site in Kazakhstan.
At Enewetak, the United States decided in the late 1970s to dump as much plutonium-contaminated soil as it could gather into a 33-foot-deep crater on Runit that had been carved out in 1958 by a bomb roughly the size of the one detonated over Hiroshima.
In addition to the contaminated soil, crews filled 437 plastic bags with plutonium chunks they had picked up from the ground, left behind when one bomb misfired. These also went into the crater, which was then covered with an 18-inch-thick concrete cap. Most of the rest of the radioactive waste, with too little plutonium to trouble with, was bulldozed into the lagoon, over the objections of the Environmental Protection Agency and the displaced people of Enewetak. American officials also chose to leave radiation on the land at levels far higher than would be allowed after a similar cleanup in the United States.
The cleanup was completed in 1980, and some of the residents of Enewetak, who had been forced out in 1946 to make way for the bombs, were allowed to return. About half the atoll was still uninhabitable, however, and most of the rest had lost its ability to grow food. Canned Spam became a staple.
Longevity was not among the design criteria for the Runit dome (unlike Yucca Mountain in Nevada, where, until recently, the federal government planned to deposit its spent nuclear fuel deep underground in facilities designed to be safe for at least one million years). In fact the dome does not meet American standards for landfills for household trash.
A task force of the federal government's National Research Council warned in 1982 that the dome might be breached by a severe typhoon. But a 2013 report sponsored by the Department of Energy saw no reason to worry. ''Catastrophic failure of the concrete dome,'' it said, ''and instantaneous release of all its contents into the lagoon will not necessarily lead to any significant change in the radiation dose delivered to the local resident population.''
The reason, according to the report, was that the radiation inside the dome was ''dwarfed'' by the radiation in the sediments in the lagoon. Thus a leak from the dome would be no added threat because it is dirtier on the outside than the inside. Plutonium isotopes recently discovered in the South China Sea have been traced to the Marshall Islands, some 2,800 miles away.
An inspection last year found that the dome was deteriorating, and the radioactive groundwater below rises and falls with the tides. Storms wash sand onto the dome; vines grow in the cracks.
As things now stand, the Runit dome is likely to be submerged by rising seas or torn apart by storms, releasing its radioactive poison into the ocean and compounding the legacy our advanced civilization has left to this tiny island nation.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/opinion/a-pacific-isle-radioactive-and-forgotten.html
LOAD-DATE: December 4, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Op-Ed
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
151 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 3, 2014 Wednesday 11:53 PM GMT
Joe Hockey to make a statement on the economy - politics live;
Maybe it's the last sitting day, maybe it's not. More bad headlines for the Abbott government as the treasurer, Joe Hockey, lays the ground for the mid year economic forecast with a statement to parliament. All the developments from Canberra, live
BYLINE: Katharine Murphy
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 2644 words
block-time published-time 10.53am AEST
Julie stows bananas
The foreign minister Julie Bishop is doing her best to clean up this morning's banana smoothie. She's in Melbourne, and naturally she's asked about this morning's story about her bollocking the prime minister for sending trade minister and climate science irrationalist Andrew Robb to Lima to chaperone her for climate change talks.
Julie has put down the fruit. She tells reporters that it was an efficient use of our time to have two ministers at the Lima conference. This shows how seriously we are taking the climate change conference, Bishop says, with a smile that would stop traffic.
block-time published-time 10.47am AEST
Clive's Christmas message to reporters: Stick It.
The press conference descended into predictable farce when reporters started asking about Palmer's court case. Palmer turned away from the reporter asking the question.
Then when another reporter pressed on Dio Wang and education reform, Palmer departed with this retort.
Stick it.
block-time published-time 10.44am AEST
Palmer is swatting away questions about whether his Senator, Dio Wang, is keen to work with the government on higher education reform.
Palmer says Senator Wang certainly wants education reform but not Christopher Pyne's education package.
Q: On higher education, if Dio Wang believes reform is necessary, will you allow him to vote accordingly is?
Palmer:
He doesn't believe it's necessary.
Q: He says the system is unsustainable.
It depends on what you're talking about. If you are talking about Christopher Pyne's bill, he doesn't believe it's necessary.
block-time published-time 10.40am AEST
Q: Is it your understanding that this bill will be before the Senate by the end of this week?
Palmer:
I think it will be there now probably.
(He could be right. The division bells are ringing.)
block-time published-time 10.38am AEST
The price of a Clive flip
Palmer says he got a couple of extra concessions out of the government in this final dash.
He says:
People on special enterprise visas (SHEVs) will get family reunion rights, and..
There will be no cap on the number of visas.
block-time published-time 10.34am AEST
Now the spotlight turns to Ricky Muir. If Ricky's on board, then it's happy Christmas Scott Morrison.
Palmer is telling reporters he believes Muir will support the legislation.
Q: Have you had any discussions with Ricky Muir on this bill?
I have had some discussions with him. I am pretty sure he will support the bill.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.39am AEST
block-time published-time 10.33am AEST
It's official: Clive flips
Clive Palmer is confirming that he will back the migration legislation despite telling the government yesterday he was inclined not to.
Mind your whiplash.
block-time published-time 10.31am AEST
Just for the record - I mentioned earlier on Bill Shorten's effort in the valedictory to bamboozle the prime minister with.. empathy.
Here's the excerpt.
Madam Speaker, earlier this year I lost my mother, a wonderful woman who taught me and my twin brother so much. The prime minister sent me a very kind message of condolence. In one of those unscripted moments in public life, Prince William was ahead of the prime minister, Princess Kate behind, prime minister in between - my wife was talking to Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge was talking to Madam Speaker - and there was the prime minister and I within handshake range as we did.
I thanked him for his thoughtful words and his message about my mother. I said that every so often, just when I'm at the point of complete frustration with the prime minister, he does something nice to surprise me. I think the Prime Minister was sufficiently surprised at this comment but he paused and said "Don't worry, I'm sure I'll find a way to frustrate you soon".
Prime minister, thank you for your generosity. Please send my very best to your remarkable wife Margie and your clever and capable daughters. I'm sure as you savour a shandy or two this summer, pondering your year of achievement, you will miss us, but don't worry, we'll be back, we'll be here, ready for the political battle in the year ahead whatever it may bring.
block-time published-time 10.27am AEST
Everything today is more or less - the economic statement does not yet have a landing slot in the House of Representatives, it has not been scheduled definitively.
We still expect it before Question Time. Perhaps we need to put out an APB for Christopher Pyne.
block-time published-time 10.18am AEST
I should also note in passing, the new Labor government in Victoria is being sworn in as we speak.
block-time published-time 10.13am AEST
Sorry I should have mentioned - noon more or less is the timing on Joe Hockey's economic statement.
block-time published-time 10.01am AEST
Opposition leader Bill Shorten makes his valedictory statement in the House of Reps chamber of Parliament House Canberra this morning, Thursday 4th December 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia Valedictorians, one and all. Photograph: Mike Bowers /Guardian Australia
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.03am AEST
block-time published-time 9.52am AEST
More news reports starting to emerge that Morrison is more likely to get a victory today than not. Looks like we are all getting the same mail.
I'm hearing govt close to securing numbers for TPV bill with PUP and Muir. @SkyNewsAust
- David Speers (@David_Speers) December 3, 2014
block-time published-time 9.42am AEST
That's quite funny.
Hey Shaun @madashelltv. You should have got into the merchandising before Bill did. pic.twitter.com/TENYHmkVus
- Julie Owens (@JulieOwensMP) December 3, 2014
block-time published-time 9.41am AEST
We'll continue to make inquiries about the migration bill. It's looking more like victory for Morrison than defeat at this point, but that guidance is far from definitive just yet. Too many moving parts. Clive Palmer is due to address reporters in about an hour.
block-time published-time 9.34am AEST
Sorry to fixate on small things, but one Cabinet colleague behind the prime minister for his valedictory? One?
Is there an offsite going on somewhere?
block-time published-time 9.31am AEST
Shorten does his best nice to the prime minister, paying tribute to his personal generosity in big moments, sending best regards to the Abbott family. Nice is the best revenge in politics, professional fighters can deal with combat, it's much harder to respond to empathy and kindness. It cuts across the front you need to preserve yourself in a brutal line of work. It disarms and disorients. It should be noted the prime minister squirmed appropriately during the Shorten tribute.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.16am AEST
block-time published-time 9.23am AEST
The Prime Minister Tony Abbott makes a statement in the house of Reps chamber of Parliament House Canberra this morning, Thursday 4th December 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
Oh, no, one Cabinet minister - apologies - Barnaby Joyce was in the chamber.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 9.36am AEST
block-time published-time 9.21am AEST
Shorten, haw haw.
To members of the press gallery, we all benefit from your hindsight.
block-time published-time 9.19am AEST
Now it's Bill Shorten's turn. Abbott's delivery was somewhat funereal. Shorten is positively bubbly.
block-time published-time 9.18am AEST
Where is the Cabinet? Calling all Cabinet ministers... your leader is speaking.
block-time published-time 9.15am AEST
The prime minister says the two priorities of government are national security and economic security. He notes Labor has provided considerable bipartisanship on security.
We are into the thank you's. Colleagues (who, as I've mentioned, are curiously absent in the chamber). Cleaners. Madam Speaker. Parliamentary staff.
His chief of staff, Peta Credlin.
The fiercest political warrior I've ever worked with.
block-time published-time 9.09am AEST
Abbott's cheersquad behind him looks a little sparse as he notes the G20 in Brisbane was a fragrant moment for this country.
(Fragrant?)
block-time published-time 9.07am AEST
Valedictories in the House
It being the last sitting day of 2014 (probs) the prime minister is currently giving his summation of 2014 to the chamber.
Tony Abbott is using this speech to run through his shopping list of government achievements.
On the budget deadlock, he says this:
The budget is being addressed. I can't say it is fully addressed, but a good start has been made.
I don't think anyone could question our clarity of purpose and our strength of character.
block-time published-time 9.03am AEST
Not looking good for refugees
Deep background word out of the Senate is Morrison has persuaded the PUPs to back the migration legislation. I'm not certain that's the case yet, but that's the word.
All things liable to change without notice.
I'll keep you posted.
block-time published-time 8.56am AEST
It's wonderful to see how engaged Politics Live readers have been in our #BrickSenate nonsense over this final sitting fortnight. Tim Senior via Twitter suggests we should branch out of bricks and into little fluffy toys.
Here in the #SylvanianSenate is (L-R) Clive Palmer, Jacqui Lambie and Fiona Nash. @murpharoo@mpbowerspic.twitter.com/IPZg1Wq57A
- Tim Senior (@timsenior) December 3, 2014
block-time published-time 8.49am AEST
The Immigration minister Scott Morrison after an interview this morning in the press gallery of Parliament House in Canberra, Thursday 4th December 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
Step back. Captain Cronulla, coming through.
block-time published-time 8.47am AEST
Scott Morrison: I'm not on Oprah's couch
Morrison is on Sky News now, being asked about reshuffles, given the defence minister has had an appalling few weeks. The immigration minister is regarded by backbenchers as a chap on the move and by ministerial colleagues as a chap who needs his vaulting ambition contained within hard portfolio boundaries.
Morrison is often tipped as Johnston's replacement in defence when Tony Abbott finally shuffles his creaky deck chairs. The immigration minister isn't buying in.
Those decisions aren't made by the minister for border protection. It has nothing to do with me.
Sky reporter Kieran Gilbert pushes Morrison on Julie Bishop stamping her foot and Johnston's office being in clear meltdown. What to do, what to do, Gilbert wonders?
Morrison:
Kieran, you are not Oprah and I'm not on Oprah's couch.
block-time published-time 8.40am AEST
The Immigration minister Scott Morrison after an interview this morning in the press gallery of Parliament House in Canberra, Thursday 4th December 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
Theme music suggestions very welcome.
block-time published-time 8.28am AEST
Here at Politics Live, hydration comes with a side of abuse.
Well @mpbowers this is war pic.twitter.com/yz9kiMTQbo
- Katharine Murphy (@murpharoo) December 3, 2014
block-time published-time 8.26am AEST
However it ends, it's going to be a long day. Best stay hydrated.
The Treasurer Joe Hockey during an interview this morning in the press gallery of Parliament House in Canberra, Thursday 4th December 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 8.25am AEST
Another minister with a very big day today is the immigration minister Scott Morrison.
Morrison wants to get a highly contentious migration proposal through the Senate, and has been attempting to woo the Palmer United Party with a promise of an increase in the humanitarian intake if they do the nasty stuff.
It's not clear whether it will be thumbs up or whether the government is going to take another legislative bath this week. If it's to be no, Morrison was making it clear on the radio this morning that the sweeteners on the table now would be off the table. No increase in the humanitarian intake.
Radio National Breakfast host Fran Kelly asked Morrison whether kids would remain detained on Christmas Island.
Morrison:
Of course they will because we revert to the policy which currently stands.
block-time published-time 8.09am AEST
Morning Joe.
The Treasurer Joe Hockey walks back to his ministerial office after an interview in the press gallery of Parliament House in Canberra this morning, Thursday 4th December 2014 Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 8.02am AEST
The treasurer Joe Hockey (and we hear, the prime minister) plan to address the chamber shortly on the economy. All week the Abbott's government's economic messaging has veered between everything is hunky dory and everything is on the brink of ruination. Today we are more in the ruination camp: give us our structural reform agenda or the Senate gets it.
Hockey has already been on the radio.
The Treasurer Joe Hockey during an interview in the press gallery of Parliament House in Canberra this morning, Thursday 4th December 2014 Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
There is a risk we could face a fall in living standards if we can't implement our economic action plan.
Beyond that, Hockey is once again playing up ending industry assistance to Australian car manufacturers as a positive for the economy. A large number of car workers will lose their jobs over the next couple of years courtesy of that decision early in the life of the Abbott government, and they are losing jobs in a weak economy.
I'm no fan of business welfare. Cutting industry assistance is good for the budget, sure - but I fail to see how adding to the joblessness queue is good for the economy.
It really isn't. And why the treasurer thinks this is a positive political message right now when the government is fighting major political bushfires in South Australia completely escapes me.
And if business welfare is bad for the economy by definition, should we junk all of it? Tax concessions for business? And the biggest most absurd boondoggle of all, the government's Direct Action scheme?
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 8.10am AEST
block-time published-time 7.47am AEST
Good morning folks and welcome to what I'm going to continue to insist is the last parliamentary sitting day for 2014 - even though it may well not be. Coming into parliament this morning I passed two exhausted looking Senators who clearly would much rather be going home tonight than grinding through an extended sitting. But parliament will consider its fate today when it considers a motion about whether to sit on to deal with unfinished business, or whether to scatter for Christmas and a surf.
This morning's news cycle ain't pretty for the government. David Wroe has a story in Fairfax suggesting the defence minister David Johnston's office is in meltdown. Wroe says two staff members were "shown the door as the Defence Department launched an investigation into a damaging leak of the minister's expense receipts." The News Corp tabloids had a story the day before detailing Johnston's somewhat generous hospitality spending. Strangely, that first story didn't get a great run even though it's classic tabloid fodder. Wonder why?
Moving on. In the Australian Financial Review, Phil Coorey reports that foreign minister Julie Bishop stamped her foot to Tony Abbott after learning she would be chaperoned by her junior minister Andrew Robb at climate talks in Peru to make sure she didn't actually agree to anything to would assist the cause of containing emissions. "Julie went bananas at the PM," said one source.
Lots of potassium in bananas. Good for strength and stamina. Speaking of which, let's sprint into the day. The news cycle is already running full tilt. Lots of issues on the go - including a ministerial statement on the economy once the House sits.
The Politics Live comments thread is open for your business and so are we on the Twits - @murpharoo@mpbowers
LOAD-DATE: December 3, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
152 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 3, 2014 Wednesday 11:18 PM GMT
Green activists from Ecuador harassed by police on way to climate summit;
Activists say their presence at the meeting in Peru would be embarrassing to President Rafael Correa, who wants to drill for oil in the Amazon
BYLINE: Dan Collyns in Lima
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 557 words
A group of Ecuadorian environmental activists travelling to the UN Climate Change conference in neighbouring Peru were stopped and harassed at least six times by police who eventually seized their bus, members of the group have told the Guardian.
The activists claim that they have been obstructed because the Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa wants to avoid potentially embarrassing protests at the climate conference over his plan to drill for oil in Yasuni, an Amazon reserve and one of the most biodiverse places on earth.
"We believe our presence in the summit would not benefit Correa, because we will question and denounce what he's doing with Yasuni," said Mateo Martínez, a member of the Yasunidos campaign group, who was on the bus.
The bus, carrying 17 activists, was first stopped by the police at about 2am on Tuesday morning while it was travelling from the Ecuadorian capital Quito to Guayaquil. The stops continued throughout the day with the involvement of customs officers, transit police and immigration officials, said Patricio Chavez, who was also in the group.
Chávez said the second time they were stopped was outside Guayaquil, where they were expected to give a press conference about their campaign against against oil prospecting in Yasuni.
The heavily-graffitied bus, known as the ' Climate Caravan ', was then stopped at least three more times before being impounded and towed to Guayaquil, reportedly for not having a licence for be used for private profit.
"The Climate Caravan bus was not stopped once in its 10-month journey from Mexico, even in Ecuador, until we made it public that Yasunidos would be joining the climate change activists to go to the COP in Lima," said Chavez, part of the Yasunidos campaign group.
"We weren't given any official explanation only that it was routine procedure but extraofficially police officers told us they said they had been given an order from above."
"There was no physical mistreatment but our group, especially the women, felt intimidated by the constant detentions," he added.
"The only possible explanation faced with such absurd and appalling allegations points to Ecuadorian government's fear of our criticism of its decision to open Yasuni national park up to oil exploration," the group added in a statement.
The harassment was shared on social networks by activists on the bus, who tweeted updates and shared images of police stopping the bus.
Government officials say they stopped the bus because the driver did not have the correct documentation. The country's interior minister tweeted an image of the driver's US license, with the comment: "We will not allow vehicular movement of passengers without professional licenses. The responsibility belongs to everyone."
The Yasuni activists responded by posting a copy of a document granting the driver permission to drive in Ecuador.
Last August, Rafeal Correa scrapped a pioneering scheme, the Yasuni Ishpingo-Tambococha-Tiputini (ITT) initiative, to keep oil in the ground under a corner of the Yasuni national park in return for donations from the international community.
He said only $13m (£8m) of the $3.6bn goal had been given, and that "the world has failed us", giving the green light to drilling.
Additional reporting by Eduardo Varas and Marcela Ribadeneira
LOAD-DATE: December 3, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
153 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 3, 2014 Wednesday 5:44 PM GMT
2014 set to be world's hottest year ever;
Record average temperatures highlight the urgent need to agree a deal on emissions at the UN climate change talks in LimaThe hottest year on record - in pictures
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1198 words
The world is on course for the hottest year ever in 2014, the United Nations weather agency said on Wednesday, heightening the sense of urgency around climate change negotiations underway in Lima.
Preliminary estimates from the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) found global average land and sea surface temperatures for the first 10 months of 2014 had soared higher than ever recorded.
The findings - broadly in line with those of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) and other scientific agencies - indicate that by year-end 2014 will break all previous high temperature records.
The steady escalation of greenhouse gas emissions, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, have seen a succession of record-breaking years for temperature since the dawning of the 21 stcentury and 2014 promises to be no exception, the WMO said.
"Fourteen of the 15 warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century," said the WMO's secretary-general Michel Jarraud. "What we saw in 2014 is consistent with what we expect from a changing climate.
"Record-breaking heat combined with torrential rainfall and floods destroyed livelihoods and ruined lives. What is particularly unusual and alarming this year are the high temperatures of vast areas of the ocean surface, including in the northern hemisphere," he said.
The new evidence provided by the WMO report of the gathering risks of climate change undercut the optimism expressed by negotiators from industrialised countries at the opening of the Lima talks.
Christiana Figueres, the UN's top climate official, said the findings drove home the urgency of reaching a deal. Negotiations have been grinding on for more than 20 years.
"Our climate is changing and every year the risks of extreme weather events and impacts on humanity rise," she said.
Ed Davey, the UK climate secretary, said the UN climate talks were critical to stop temperatures rising to dangerous levels. "More record warm temperatures in the UK and across the world are yet more evidence that we need to act urgently to prevent dangerous climate change," he said.
Officials from nearly 200 countries will spend the next two weeks in Lima working to agree on a plan to cut global greenhouse gas emissions fast enough and deeply enough to limit warming to 2C above pre-industrial times, the official objective of the UN talks.
But even that goal - which scientists say may not go far enough to prevent low-lying island states from drowning in rising seas - may be moving beyond reach.
"When confronted with numbers like these, the challenge to stablise global warming below dangerous levels can seem daunting indeed," Michael Mann, the climate scientist, said. "The globe is warming, ice is melting, and our climate is changing, as a result. And the damage is being felt - in the forms of more destructive weather extremes, more devastating wildfires, and unprecedented threats to the survival of endangered animal species."
He said the Lima climate talks - and a summit scheduled for Paris at the end of next year - were "perhaps our last real opportunity to stave off truly dangerous and irreversible world-wide changes in our climate."
Bill McKibben, leader of the 350.org campaign group, saw the findings as a call to arms to climate activists. "If you thought 2014 was hot, wait 'til you see 2015. This means we need to turn up the flame even higher under the fossil fuel companies that are frying our planet," he said.
The WMO report found the global average air temperature over land and sea surface for January to October was about 0.57C above the average of 14C for the 1961-1990 reference period, and 0.09C above the average for the past 10 years (2004-2013).
The most striking evidence of warming was probably in the oceans, however. Most of the excess heat trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gas emissions ends up in the oceans.
The WMO said global sea surface temperatures were 0.45C higher than the average over the last 50 years.
If November and December continue on the same course, then 2014 will edge out 2010, 2005 and 1998 as the hottest years ever known - but only by a few hundredths of a degree. Different data sets also show slightly different rankings, the WMO said.
In any event, the trend line is clear. The world is getting warmer, especially the oceans. Those higher temperatures were already exacting a toll, in terms of heavy rainfall and flooding in some countries, and extreme drought in others, the WMO said.
The agency dismissed outright the notion posed by some climate deniers of a pause in the warming trend.
"There is no standstill in global warming," Jarraud said.
The world's big three emitters - the US, China, and the EU - have pledged new targets for cutting their use of fossil fuels, injecting optimism into the Lima talks.
But scientists say even those targets are not enough to limit warming to 2C, and other big carbon polluters such as India, Russia, and Australia have yet to come on board.
Meanwhile, there were early signs of tension between the US and EU over the legal structure of the agreement that is due to be adopted in Paris next year.
Campaign groups monitoring the talks called on negotiators to take the new WMO findings to heart.
"The fact that we're tracking towards the hottest year on record should send chills through anyone who says they care about climate change - especially negotiators at the UN climate talks here in Lima," said Samantha Smith, who heads WWF's climate and energy initiative. "This is more scientific evidence of the real impact climate change is having on our world. The changes will be felt the most by the most vulnerable people, whose lives and livelihoods are already being affected."
The WMO found western North America, Europe, eastern Eurasia, much of Africa, large areas of South America and southern and western Australia were especially warm. South Africa, Australia, and Argentina started the year with blistering heat waves.
However, the US and Canada ushered in 2014 with the chill Arctic winds of the polar vortex. Central Russia also recorded cooler than average conditions for the year.
Europe also experienced extreme weather, with the UK buffetted by storms. A separate temperature data set, the world's longest continuous record, showed England was on track for the hottest year in over three centuries. Higher temperatures cause more evaporation and more rain, and 2014 began with England's wettest winter in over 250 years, leading to widespread flooding.
In Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia, more than two million people were caught up in severe flooding. Parts of Turkey saw five times the normal amount of rain, and France experienced its wettest summer since 1959.
South Asia also experienced heavy rains, with severe flooding in northern Bangladesh, northern Pakistan and India, affecting millions of people in August and September.
For other parts of the world, however, 2014 brought drought. Rainfall in parts of the Yellow River basin in China were less than half of the summer average. A large swathe of the western US continued under drought. New South Wales and southeast Queensland in Australia also went without rain.
LOAD-DATE: December 3, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
154 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 3, 2014 Wednesday 5:35 PM GMT
Want a green energy future? Nationalize Canada's oil industry;
Canada's oil corporations have made a profitable mess of the country: it's time to put them under public, democratic control
BYLINE: Martin Lukacs
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 984 words
It would be hard to invent a more destructive ritual of national self-punishment. Year after year, we hand oil companies gigantic tracts of pristine land. They skin them of entire ecosystems. They vacuum billions of dollars out of the country. Their oversized power, sunk into lobbying and litigation, upends government law-making.
And Canada's return? The exploitation of the tar sands provides just two percent of our GDP. It has gutted manufacturing jobs and made a mockery of our emissions targets. And now that oil prices are crashing - as resource commodities predictably do - it is putting a vicious squeeze on government spending.
Faced with similar recklessness, people in other countries are setting out to take back control of their energy. As Naomi Klein documents in her new book This Changes Everything, it hasn't been driven by ideological fervour. Towns like Boulder, Colorado, concerned by the threat of climate change, have started demanding a clean, renewable alternative from their energy providers. They are then discovering that private utility companies simply refuse to provide it.
The experience is forcing a reckoning with an economic myth that has gripped global politics for the last thirty years: that private companies better serve our needs than public institutions. In fact, private utility and oil companies - like all large corporations - are legally designed to look after only a single need: the maximization of their profits.
That's meant other needs - the provision of renewable energy, for instance, or ensuring the economy doesn't tank the planet - fall by the wayside. They don't offer the prospect of massive profits. Realizing this, waves of citizens in Germany and towns like Boulder are voting in referendums to return private utilities to public hands. That spirit - along with the idea of the nationalization of the oil industry - should rapidly return to Canada.
Some will insist that nationalizing Canada's oil industry is a fringe, radical idea. But half of Canadians already support it, according to one survey. That's despite decades of relentless misinformation about the supposed perils of government regulating or running business. Even in the province that is home to the tar sands, more than one in three favoured the idea. Beware of your neighbours, Albertans: they're harbouring closet nationalizers.
Canadians value that their hospitals, schools, transit, and libraries are run in the public interest. So why not our energy? Sure, the old style of nationalized companies - centralized, bureaucratic and often corrupt - is easy to criticize.
But this could be an opportunity to reinvent nationalization - creating non-profits owned by all levels of government or by co-operatives that millions of Canadians are already members of, committed to easing us off oil rather than selling us every last drop. These entities wouldn't be run by CEOs accountable only to share-holders, or by bureaucrats accountable only to politicians: they would involve diverse boards with elected representatives of workers, consumers, and First Nations.
They could hardly squander Canada's wealth more than those now running the industry. While oil companies have become the richest corporations in history, both federal and provincial governments have settled for capturing single-digit rents and taxes. An Alberta bumper sticker from the 1980s summed up this approach: "Please God, let there be another oil boom. I promise not to piss it all away next time." But piss it away they have.
Take as a contrast Norway. A majority owner of Statoil, it has retained most of its oil revenue. A pension fund ensuring future savings for its citizens contains almost a trillion dollars - that's nearly $200,000 per person. Alberta has produced twice as much oil; its fund, meanwhile, has been pilfered by its governments and holds a paltry $18 billion. Nationalization would be a way to finally put our hands on oil money and start directing the earnings toward something useful: like investment in renewable energy and green infrastructure.
Legally redesigned not to seek profit as their basic motive, public interest oil companies would also behave differently: they'd improve employment standards; reduce and eventually halt new exploration and production; and stop enlisting police to criminalize Indigenous peoples and those standing in the way of unwanted projects and pipelines. Other forms of corporate subversion and distraction - funding for climate change denial or battalions of spin-masters - would be abandoned.
A public mandate would ensure that oil companies end their hunt for the highest international price, when Canada remains the only industrialized country without an emergency reserve for its residents. They'd encourage conservation, rather than stoking consumption. As we hit the earth's ecological limits, the oil we burn should be saved for only the most essential needs - used carefully, not carelessly.
Most importantly, public interest oil companies could initiate a transition to a more diverse, balanced economy. Even Alberta's finance minister seems on board: "we have to get off the oil train," he acknowledged last week. The industry would boost investment in the renewable sector - which, as much as Canada's government hates for you to know, creates seven to eight times more jobs than similar investments in the oil sector. And they would ultimately convert themselves into different sort of companies: instead of drilling wells or laying pipes, their workers would assemble solar panels and rig up wind turbines.
None of this will be easy. But as climate change and weather disasters fuelled by oil companies' pollution hit with increasing severity, ever more people will be open to the idea. Canada's oil corporations have made a profitable mess of the country: it's long-past time to put them under public, democratic control.
Twitter: @Martin_Lukacs
LOAD-DATE: December 3, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
155 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 3, 2014 Wednesday 5:02 PM GMT
Exxon Mobil should return profits to investors, not build more reserves;
The oil giant should focus on value rather than investing money in expensive projects to build the very fossil fuel reserves that endanger its own - and the planet's - survival
BYLINE: Natasha Lamb
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 807 words
Exxon Mobil has been left pondering an age-old investment question - when to re-invest profits and when to return them to investors - after a shareholder proposal, which asks the company to return capital to shareholders rather than break ground on high-cost high-carbon projects in the face of global climate change, was filed by Arjuna Capital and As You Sow.
The answer boils down to where you can secure the greatest value. If companies invest in new projects for ever-lower returns, those investments are value destroying. At a certain point, companies must face the fact that they are no longer growth companies, but mature, value companies that pay steady dividends.
There are two physical constraints determining the growth of oil companies - there is only so much easy-access oil and our atmosphere can absorb only so much carbon. The first constraint is hurting business now; industry return on invested capital is at a 40-year low despite a sustained period of high gas prices. Unconventional oil, which is harder to extract, is simply too expensive.
As big oil races to separate sticky oil from sand, and drill to previously unthinkable ocean depths in previously unthinkable layers of the earth's crust, spending has doubled over the last 10 years. But supply has only grown by 3%. Exxon is not immune - it has doubled company investments in new reserves over the last seven years, while reducing capital returned to shareholders by roughly a third.
While the second constraint, global climate change, is hotly contested and politicised, it is actually a simple math and science equation. If we burn too much carbon we will raise global temperatures to unsafe levels. Big oil can heed that logic and wake up to the biggest risk their business faces this century. Or they can put their heads in the sticky tar-like sand and continue to pump money into lobbying efforts trying to convince the public otherwise.
In response to Arjuna's previous shareholder proposal on carbon asset risk, Exxon publicly stated their business is not at risk of decreased demand because they think it's "highly unlikely" that global governments will adopt severe enough policies to reduce fossil fuel consumption.
But just this month, the USA and China took a step toward meaningful carbon goals. Addressing a recent seminar in London, BP's former chief executive, Lord Brown, said : "The targets agreed by President Obama and President Xi will not be achieved with the policies currently in place... They will therefore require new policies, which could reduce the two countries' cumulative oil demand by more than 17bn barrels of oil over the next 15 years."
This is but the latest writing on the wall. Global governments already agree that we cannot raise global temperatures more than 2C, which means that we can only burn less than one third of existing fossil fuel reserves carried on energy firm's balance sheets.
The problem investors face is that Exxon is both willing and able to spend a lot more on projects that could prove uneconomical. The company has the potential to spend more than $100bn in high-cost high-carbon projects over the next 10 years - projects that could fail to prove fruitful if oil prices stay below $95 a barrel, as they are today.
Building fossil fuel reserves in the face of global climate change is simple folly. We should not be in a rush to find and burn all the carbon we can, regardless of cost and irreversible climate impact. Instead, companies and their investors should focus on value.
Big Oil faces a headwind. They are pushing the limits; there's only so much oil in the ground and there's only so much CO2 we can pump into the air. When Exxon realises that, they can start planning smartly for the future.
Natasha Lamb is the director of equity research and shareholder engagement at Arjuna Capital
This article was changed on 3 December to remove the reference to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which did not prompt Exxon's statement on demand.
Read more stories like this:
Australia divestment war shows investment is now the main climate change battleground
Financial systems must consider extreme weather, or risk condemning millions to die
Brought to you by EY: Building sustainable businesses by mixing profit with purpose
The finance hub is funded by EY. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled 'brought to you by'. Find out more here.
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: December 3, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
156 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 3, 2014 Wednesday 3:17 PM GMT
Transforming the world through research;
The University of Sussex is working to tackle real-world issues around the globe
BYLINE: University of Sussex
SECTION: UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX PARTNER ZONE
LENGTH: 629 words
Since our founding, Sussex has been a research-led university carrying out groundbreaking work that impacts directly on the wider world. One of the cornerstones of our governing strategy is to deliver internationally high quality research of lasting academic value that benefits and enriches society.
Our work addresses major world issues, leading in areas of expertise such as climate change and development studies. We have recently been ranked 34th among 200 top world universities for research influence in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2014-15.
Our academic staff are engaged in a wide variety of research that has a global impact on populations and individuals worldwide. They come to Sussex from diverse places around the world - one in four of our teaching and research staff is from overseas, helping us maintain a global outlook. Here are some examples of Sussex research that is having great impact internationally.
Fighting podoconiosis, a 'neglected' tropical disease
Podoconiosis is a widespread non-infectious disease of the lower legs that causes swelling, pain, disability and extreme social stigma for sufferers. It affects the wellbeing of an estimated four million people annually and constrains economic development in a number of tropical counties.
Through world-class genetic, public health and social science research, a group at Brighton and Sussex Medical School has generated evidence for a simple programme of podoconiosis treatment and prevention that has already reached an estimated 60,000 patients in endemic areas of Ethiopia, providing significant clinical, social and economic benefits.
Low-carbon technology transfer: enhancing international policy on climate change
Climate change is arguably one of the most pressing international issues of the modern age and tackling this seemingly immense problem requires radical innovation in energy consumption and a global switch from high- to low-carbon economies.
Research by the Sussex Energy Group is helping to facilitate the transfer of low-carbon technology to developing countries by informing new policy approaches, including international collaborative research and development and the establishment of climate innovation centres.
The research findings were presented at meetings of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, among others, and contributed to material proposals for new policy approaches. Emerging ideas from Sussex, together with proposals by research partners in other institutions around the world, all served to emphasise the potential of climate innovation centres in developing countries as a policy mechanism through which low-carbon technological capacity building could be achieved.
Improving crowd management practices around the world
Crowd disorder is a significant social problem that costs millions in resources and man hours, and has considerable human cost in terms of injury, arrest and imprisonment. Research at Sussex on the dynamics of crowd behaviour has improved our understanding of the psychological effects of two distinct types of crowd participation: events that involve collective conflict against authority and collective resilience in emergency situations.
This work has had direct influence, nationally and internationally, on crowd management practices in both of these contexts. In terms of policing crowds, the research has helped generate new public order practices that are being implemented by police forces in the UK and across Europe. The insights into collective resilience in disasters has informed new guidance on psychosocial care for people in emergencies from organisations such as NATO and the UK's Department of Health.
Find out more about research at the University of Sussex.
LOAD-DATE: December 3, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
157 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 3, 2014 Wednesday 2:30 PM GMT
Australian companies fail to identify sustainability risks and opportunities;
A new study of ASX 50 companies finds only a handful are dealing with sustainability issues tactically
BYLINE: Victoria Whitaker
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 942 words
In an interview earlier this year with a corporate sustainability director of a leading Australian corporation, I had hoped to discuss the value of sustainability reporting. What was said I've heard on several occasions, but it still caught me off guard and raised a number of questions:
I understand the role of sustainability reporting as a proxy for good governance and moral seriousness but I think, if all organisations were completely honest about it, it's a burden and the value is not proportionate to the burden.
Institutional investors in Australia are increasingly demanding that companies are transparent and accountable for their sustainability risks. Over the past year both the Australian Securities Investment Commission and the Australian Securities Exchange have begun asking listed companies to disclose their sustainability risks. They know that these affect a company's bottom line.
There is now evidence to show that sustainability-related crises are strategic risks that have greater impact on company value than operational and financial risks. This is the result of the failure of management to adequately prepare and respond to a situation and its aftermath, resulting in a loss of investor confidence and decreased share price.
This year, the World Economic Forum's Global Risks 2014, found that of the top 10 global risks of the highest concern to global business leaders during 2014, seven were sustainability-related: water crises (3); income disparity (4); climate change (5); extreme weather (6); governance failures (7); food crises (8); and political and social instability (10).
It appears to me that sustainability risks are managed largely in the same way as other risks; they are included on risk registers, their likelihood and impact are assessed and strategies are created to manage them. So why then are some sustainability risks left off? Why isn't climate change recognised as a productivity risk (as opposed to a regulatory risk) on every risk register worldwide, when clearly scientists and many economists expect that it will have major impacts across the global economy?
The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), together with KPMG Australia and CPA Australia, investigated how ASX 50 companies identify with sustainability risks and why. The resulting report, released this week, From Tactical to Strategic - How Australian Businesses Create Value from Sustainability (pdf) found that there is significant opportunity for Australian companies to be much more strategic in their approaches to sustainability and extract more value for the business.
We found that most deal with sustainability issues tactically - compliance and efficiency drivers dominate. Regarding urbanisation for example, companies tend to focus only on waste management and not infrastructure needs or social isolation. Regarding wealth, companies focus more on philanthropy and not the growing middle class. There are only a handful of ASX 50 companies that think about these issues in their complexity and understand their strategic sustainability risk exposures and opportunities.
Most of the companies investigated were failing to articulate the full value of sustainability activities for their business. The few leading companies that had a better understanding of their risks and opportunities in new products, markets and business models were those talking to investors, customers, employees, suppliers, regulators and communities.
For example, by working closer with its communities and stakeholders, property owner and developer Stockland is developing liveability metrics to help it benchmark and measure the quality of life and satisfaction within its communities.
In 2007, food retailer Woolworths established its Fresh Food Future programme to enhance the sustainability of Australian agriculture and safeguard Australia's food security. Of the A$9m (£4.8m) spent in the five years to end fiscal year 13, two thirds were invested into 180 farm to adopt innovative farming methods, while the remaining has been invested in developing talent and leadership in agriculture to circumvent its ageing workforce.
To build the capacity of people and businesses to better withstand future natural disasters, the Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience and Safer Communities brings together ASX50 finance companies, Westpac and IAG, with the Australian Red Cross, Investa Property Group, Munich Re and Optus, to advocate for safer and more resilient communities in extreme weather events.
For these companies, the insights from stakeholders and an understanding of the sustainability context are framing their business cases for acting on sustainability issues. Understanding issues from their stakeholders' perspective helps them identify impact points and solutions which in turn creates value for the business and better prepares it for the global forces that are likely to be felt by every business worldwide over the next 20 years.
Victoria Whitaker is head of the Global Reporting Initiative's Focal Point Australia
Read more stories like this:
Australia divestment war shows investment is now the main climate change battleground
Financial systems must consider extreme weather, or risk condemning millions to die
Brought to you by EY: The digital banking promise
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: December 3, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
158 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 3, 2014 Wednesday 12:05 PM GMT
Exxon Mobil should return profits to investors, not build more reserves;
The oil giant should focus on value rather than investing money in expensive projects to build the very fossil fuel reserves that endanger its own - and the planet's - survival
BYLINE: Natasha Lamb
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 795 words
Exxon Mobil has been left pondering an age-old investment question - when to re-invest profits and when to return them to investors - after a shareholder proposal, which asks the company to return capital to shareholders rather than break ground on high-cost high-carbon projects in the face of global climate change, was filed by Arjuna Capital and As You Sow.
The answer boils down to where you can secure the greatest value. If companies invest in new projects for ever-lower returns, those investments are value destroying. At a certain point, companies must face the fact that they are no longer growth companies, but mature, value companies that pay steady dividends.
There are two physical constraints determining the growth of oil companies - there is only so much easy-access oil and our atmosphere can absorb only so much carbon. The first constraint is hurting business now; industry return on invested capital is at a 40-year low despite a sustained period of high gas prices. Unconventional oil, which is harder to extract, is simply too expensive.
As big oil races to separate sticky oil from sand, and drill to previously unthinkable ocean depths in previously unthinkable layers of the earth's crust, spending has doubled over the last 10 years. But supply has only grown by 3%. Exxon is not immune - it has doubled company investments in new reserves over the last seven years, while reducing capital returned to shareholders by roughly a third.
While the second constraint, global climate change, is hotly contested and politicised, it is actually a simple math and science equation. If we burn too much carbon we will raise global temperatures to unsafe levels. Big oil can heed that logic and wake up to the biggest risk their business faces this century. Or they can put their heads in the sticky tar-like sand and continue to pump money into lobbying efforts trying to convince the public otherwise.
Exxon has publicly stated their business is not at risk of decreased demand because they think it's "highly unlikely" that global governments will adopt severe enough policies to reduce fossil fuel consumption.
But just this month, the USA and China took a step toward meaningful carbon goals. Addressing a recent seminar in London, BP's former chief executive, Lord Brown, said : "The targets agreed by President Obama and President Xi will not be achieved with the policies currently in place... They will therefore require new policies, which could reduce the two countries' cumulative oil demand by more than 17bn barrels of oil over the next 15 years."
This is but the latest writing on the wall. Global governments already agree that we cannot raise global temperatures more than 2C, which means that we can only burn less than one third of existing fossil fuel reserves carried on energy firm's balance sheets.
The problem investors face is that Exxon is both willing and able to spend a lot more on projects that could prove uneconomical. The company has the potential to spend more than $100bn in high-cost high-carbon projects over the next 10 years - projects that could fail to prove fruitful if oil prices stay below $95 a barrel, as they are today.
Building fossil fuel reserves in the face of global climate change is simple folly. We should not be in a rush to find and burn all the carbon we can, regardless of cost and irreversible climate impact. Instead, companies and their investors should focus on value.
Big Oil faces a headwind. They are pushing the limits; there's only so much oil in the ground and there's only so much CO2 we can pump into the air. When Exxon realises that, they can start planning smartly for the future.
Natasha Lamb is the director of equity research and shareholder engagement at Arjuna Capital
This article was changed on 3 December to remove the reference to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which did not prompt Exxon's statement on demand.
Read more stories like this:
Australia divestment war shows investment is now the main climate change battleground
Financial systems must consider extreme weather, or risk condemning millions to die
Brought to you by EY: Building sustainable businesses by mixing profit with purpose
The finance hub is funded by EY. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled 'brought to you by'. Find out more here.
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: December 3, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
159 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 3, 2014 Wednesday 11:48 AM GMT
Business leaders must prioritise sustainability to gain society's trust;
Companies will be judged on what they do, not what they say about going green
BYLINE: Polly Courtice
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 965 words
It's disturbing how little trust society has in business leaders. According to the 2014 Edelman Trust Barometer, just one in five of us trust business leaders to solve social or societal issues, tell us the truth, or make ethical and moral decisions. We have even less trust in our elected political leaders.
There is no shortage of rhetoric about companies going green. Company websites are littered with "core values" that relate to environment and society, such as "contributing positively to our communities and our environment", or "helping make the world a better place".
Most of them agree on the general principle, that it is about doing the right thing. The test, however, is not what companies or their leaders say, but what they actually do; not what it says in the company's vision statement or in its policies, but what lies at the heart of the business plan and strategy that is recognised and rewarded in practice.
Faced with climate change - and hence the need for sustainability - as the defining issues of our time, it is no longer a question of companies doing the right thing by doing no harm, or simply focusing on compliance and reputation management. It's whether, as major engines of our economies, they can be relied upon to respond proportionately to the challenges we face.
Commenting on the latest Synthesis Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon said, "Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in the message. Leaders must act; time is not on our side." This is the wider context for transformational business leadership.
Whether it's morally the right thing to do, or simply good for business, the fact is that global business has a crucial role to play in driving change for sustainability. The leadership burden must fall on those companies who have the greatest power and influence, mainly those at the top of the value chain.
At a time when global political leadership appears to be at an all-time low, it is the private sector that will innovate and invest most effectively in the new technologies and systems needed for a low-carbon economy. It is the private sector that is uniquely placed to foster positive change, not only through its products and services but also via its capital, talent, international perspective, and influence on policy and civil society. Companies like DSM, Kingfisher, Unilever and Nedbank have made a name for themselves in their attempts to achieve alignment between profitability and sustainability and, imperfect as these efforts may be, it is heartening to see genuine leadership emerging.
However it is clear that the scale of the task facing companies requires not only building internal capacity to drive change, but also working in new, collaborative ways that can unlock broader systemic change.
At the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL) we have seen first-hand the importance of top-level leadership and the power of collaboration in our Banking Environment Initiative, where some of the world's largest banks - including Barclays, BNY Mellon, China Construction Bank, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, and Standard Chartered - have joined forces in directing capital towards environmentally and socially-sustainable economic development, developing trade finance products and services that help their clients to achieve zero net deforestation by 2020.
The power of chief executives to promote change has been demonstrated through the Prince of Wales's Corporate Leaders Group, where CISL has worked with a group of businesses to support and influence the design of the policy responses and institutional architecture which will make a low-carbon transition possible.
The leaders in this group have publicly set out business arguments for robust national and international policies on climate change. In a series of communiqués they have called for ambitious, science-based targets and international agreements, securing support from chief executives and senior business leaders of over 1,200 companies in 61 countries, including many of the world's biggest brands, to alert the international community to the need for urgent action on climate change.
2015 will be a critical year. The decisions made at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris next December will have immense power, either to set the world on the path to a low-carbon economy or send us far off track. Now, and over the long term, business leaders must work with policy-makers and civil society to transform the global economy. Failure to do so risks seriously undermining future global prosperity and inflicting unnecessary social, economic and environmental costs on the world. Only by making this challenge a priority can business leaders build society's confidence in them.
Polly Courtice, director of the University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership
Read more like this:
Our obsession with heroic sustainability leaders will leave us all disappointed
6 reasons CEOs feel powerless to drive sustainability into their companies
Brought to you by Xyntéo: Paul Polman: 'We need to leverage the young to drive change'
The leadership hub is funded by Xyntéo . All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled 'brought to you by'. Find out more here .
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: December 3, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
160 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 3, 2014 Wednesday 11:12 AM GMT
Eating less meat essential to curb climate change, says report;
Global livestock industry produces more greenhouse gas emissions than transport but fear of a consumer backlash is preventing action, says Chatham House report
BYLINE: Damian Carrington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 795 words
Curbing the world's huge and increasing appetite for meat is essential to avoid devastating climate change, according to a new report. But governments and green campaigners are doing nothing to tackle the issue due to fears of a consumer backlash, warns the analysis from the thinktank Chatham House.
The global livestock industry produces more greenhouse gas emissions than all cars, planes, trains and ships combined, but a worldwide survey by Ipsos MORI in the report finds twice as many people think transport is the bigger contributor to global warming.
"Preventing catastrophic warming is dependent on tackling meat and dairy consumption, but the world is doing very little," said Rob Bailey, the report's lead author. "A lot is being done on deforestation and transport, but there is a huge gap on the livestock sector. There is a deep reluctance to engage because of the received wisdom that it is not the place of governments or civil society to intrude into people's lives and tell them what to eat."
The recent landmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that dietary change can "substantially lower" emissions but there is no UN plan to achieve that.
Past calls to cut meat eating by high-profile figures, from the chief of the UN's climate science panel to the economist Lord Stern, have been both rare and controversial. Other scientists have proposed a meat tax to curb consumption, but the report concludes that keeping meat eating to levels recommended by health authorities would not only lower emissions but also reduce heart disease and cancer. "The research does not show everyone has to be a vegetarian to limit warming to 2C, the stated objective of the world's governments," said Bailey.
The report builds on recent scientific studies which show that soaring meat demand in China and elsewhere could tip the world's climate into chaos. Emissions from livestock, largely from burping cows and sheep and their manure, currently make up almost 15% of global emissions. Beef and dairy alone make up 65% of all livestock emissions.
Appetite for meat is rocketing as the global population swells and becomes more able to afford meat. Meat consumption is on track to rise 75% by 2050, and dairy 65%, compared with 40% for cereals. By 2020, China alone is expected to be eating 20m tonnes more of meat and dairy a year.
Two recent peer-reviewed studies calculated that, without severe cuts in this trend, agricultural emissions will take up the entire world's carbon budget by 2050, with livestock a major contributor. This would mean every other sector, including energy, industry and transport, would have to be zero carbon, which is described as "impossible". The Chatham House report concludes: "Dietary change is essential if global warming is not to exceed 2C."
The consumer survey in the report, covering 12 nations including the US, China, India, Brazil and the EU bloc, found a link between the awareness of climate change and its impacts and the willingness to change behaviour. Acceptance that human activities cause climate change was significantly higher in China, India and Brazil than in the US, UK and Japan.
The good news, said Bailey, was that "the majority of future demand appears to be in the countries [like China and Brazil] that are the most receptive to change". He said it was "pretty disappointing" that in developed countries, where meat and dairy eating is highest, awareness of livestock's impact on the climate is low and willingness to change is low.
Brigitte Alarcon, sustainable food policy officer at WWF said: "Our LiveWell project has shown we can cut a quarter of our climate emissions from the European food supply chain by eating more pulses, fruit and vegetables and by reducing our meat consumption. National governments should improve food education to encourage healthy eating habits and environmental sustainability as a first step."
A spokesman for the UK government said: "Greenhouse gas emissions from the UK agricultural industry have fallen by more than 20% since 1990. While food choices can have an impact on emissions, well managed livestock also provide many environmental benefits including supporting biodiversity."
A separate survey by the Eating Better alliance, also published on Wednesday, shows that UK consumers are beginning to eat less meat. The YouGov poll found 20% saying they have cut the amount of meat they eat over the last year, with only 5% say they are eating more.
Prof Keith Richards, at the University of Cambridge and one of the researchers behind the two key scientific studies, said: "This is not a radical vegetarian argument; it is an argument about eating meat in sensible amounts as part of healthy, balanced diets."
LOAD-DATE: December 3, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
161 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 3, 2014 Wednesday 10:12 AM GMT
St Louis aims to ease social tensions as it joins 100 Resilient Cities programme;
The 35 newly announced 'resilient cities' include seven successful US applicants, the first two Chinese cities, plus London, Paris, Sydney, Barcelona and Milan
BYLINE: Oliver Milman in Singapore
SECTION: CITIES
LENGTH: 672 words
Strife-torn St Louis is among 35 cities around the world inducted on Wednesday into a $100m programme designed to strengthen their resilience to natural disaster, and enhance their ability to tackle issues such as violence, social exclusion and transport congestion.
The US city, which counts the troubled community of Ferguson among its suburbs, is judged to suffer from "high poverty and high crime rates". According to St Louis officials, upgrading infrastructure and improving public health and education will help ease social tensions there.
A total of 35 metropolitan areas have been added to the 100 Resilient Cities programme, an initiative funded by the Rockefeller Foundation which allocates financial and logistical support to each chosen city, including a dedicated "chief resilience officer". The first 33 cities in the programme were named last December.
A total of 331 cities across 94 countries applied to be part of this year's allocation. A team of judges was assigned by 100 Resilient Cities to choose places that have "demonstrated a dedicated commitment to building their own capacities to prepare for, withstand, and bounce back rapidly from shocks and stresses".
The second tranche of cities was named at a one-day conference in Singapore, where delegates also discussed the major threats facing cities over the coming decades: natural disasters, social unrest, economic inequality, access to healthcare, management of water and freedom of movement.
Eight Asian and Middle-Eastern cities - Phnom Penh, Deyang, Bangalore, Amman, Huangshi, Chennai, Singapore and Toyama - were chosen, along with four African cities: Arusha, Accra, Kigali and Enugu. Other successful applicants include London, Barcelona, Paris, Boston and Wellington.
Athens was chosen after a period in which the Rockefeller Foundation noted that unemployment has averaged over 50% for young people. More than a third of Athens' buildings are vulnerable to earthquakes, and the city is also baking in increasing heatwaves. But the foundation said the city is making "significant efforts" to expand welfare and healthcare services.
Also in Europe, Paris - while a "global icon" - has experienced community segregation due to urban gentrification, and its public transport system is under growing pressure, the foundation said. Lisbon is also dealing with creaking infrastructure, with city officials reporting that they are looking to do more to mitigate the impact of climate change.
Chicago is making a shift towards a technology-driven economy and is making strides to prepare itself for blizzards and floods, the foundation said. Phnom Penh suffers from regular energy blackouts and deteriorating air quality due to soaring car ownership. Meanwhile residents of Sydney, one of the world's more liveable cities, are paying soaring electricity bills due to obsolete infrastructure and are at increasing risk from climate change-driven heat waves.
Climate change, which the World Bank has warned poses a "serious threat to urban infrastructure, quality of life and entire urban systems", is a particular point of focus for the project. It is estimated that extreme weather events, which are increasingly fuelled by climate change, have already cost the world economy $2.5 trillion this century, with much of the damage caused in cities.
The newly announced 'resilient cities'
North America: Montreal (Canada); Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Santa Fe, St Louis, Tulsa (all US); San Juan (Puerto Rico); Juarez (Mexico); Santiago de los Caballeros (Dominican Republic). South America: Cali (Colombia); Santiago (Chile). Europe: Athens, Thessaloniki (both Greece); Barcelona (Spain); Belgrade (Serbia); Lisbon (Portugal); London (UK); Milan (Italy); Paris (France). Asia: Toyama (Japan); Chennai, Bangalore (both India); Deyang, Huangshi (both China); Singapore; Phnom Penh (Cambodia); Amman (Jordan). Africa: Accra (Ghana); Arusha (Tanzania); Kigali (Rwanda); Enugu (Nigeria). Oceania: Sydney (Australia); Wellington (New Zealand).
LOAD-DATE: December 3, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
162 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 3, 2014 Wednesday 9:12 AM GMT
Will Australia be the great coal defender at Lima climate talks?;
Australia heads to major climate negotiations in the wake of high level defence of its coal industry
BYLINE: Graham Readfearn
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1031 words
When a climate science denialist starts congratulating your country on its stance at major international climate change talks, you know things have gone decidedly bad.
That was a year ago in Warsaw, Poland, where Australia was establishing a new reputation as a negative force on global climate negotiations.
"Australia gets it," said the climate science denialist talking head Marc Morano, a man most often seen verballing peer-reviewed science on conservative American cable news channels.
But Morano made another statement that seemed to be an attempt make the brains of as many greenies as possible go kaboom.
" Coal is the moral choice," said Morano.
But what appeared then to be a ridiculous statement, is now Australia's official political position.
We've had Prime Minister Tony Abbott's " coal is good for humanity", the Treasurer Joe Hockey's " we export coal to lift nations out of poverty " and the Finance Minister Matthias Cormann's " coal is good ".
Kaboom! Kaboom! Kaboom!
Since Warsaw, Australia has also become the first nation in the world to actually remove laws to price greenhouse gas emissions and the Abbott Government continues to push for a cut to its own target on renewable energy generation.
Australia also declared its hottest year on record - 2013 - with 2014 likely to also be among the five hottest years on record (we have also just had the hottest November on record and the hottest spring on record).
Globally, 2014 is on track to be one of the hottest - if not the hottest - years ever recorded.
Now the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 20 thConference of the Parties meeting in Lima (to be hereafter mercifully referred to as COP20) is underway (I'll be there in three days time).
The key task for negotiators is to have in place the draft text of a new deal to be signed in Paris in late 2015 (at COP21) that for the first time will include all countries - both developed and developing.
Countries won't need to declare exactly what steps they'll take in Lima (known as Intended National Determined Contributions, or INDCS) and can wait until March next year, although some have started that ball rolling already.
The European Union wants to cut emissions by at least 40 per cent by 2030.
The US wants to cut emissions by between 26 per cent and 28 per cent by 2025 from where they were in 2005.
The US made that pledge as part of a deal with the world's largest emitter, China, which said it would peak its emissions in 2030 by which time 20 per cent or more of its energy would be coming from "non-fossil" resources such as hydro, solar and wind.
While this sounds promising, if the rest of the world matched the so-called ambition of China and the US, the supposed 2C "guardrail" to avoid dangerous global warming would be overshot (some countries, particularly low-lying ones, say a 1.5C target should be adopted).
That China-US deal has though reportedly put a more optimistic tone on the start of the Lima talks, where Australia has a delegation of 12 - its smallest in years (there were more than 100 at the fateful 2009 Copenhagen meeting).
And whereas in Warsaw the government decided not to send any ministers, this year the Australian delegation will be joined by two - Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Trade Minister Andrew Robb (Robb was shadow minister for Industry and Climate Change for a year in 2008).
While in opposition in 2011, Bishop was striking a denialist tone on climate change science in a column published in Fairfax newspapers.
Bloggers later found that Bishop had likely cut and pasted the material from climate science denial blogs.
Bishop's sympathy for people who rejected the multiple lines of evidence for human caused climate change was similar to a piece she had written in 2008.
In a mining industry conference speech earlier this year, Robb celebrated the future of brown coal - the dirtiest form of the already dirty fossil fuel.
Robb said brown coal was "a resource that is often demonised, particularly by those who oppose growth and development".
A few weeks ago Robb also jumped to the defence of Bishop, who had said the Great Barrier Reef was "not in danger" - contradicting the view of her government's own science agencies.
So what will Bishop, Robb and Australia be looking for in Lima?
In October, Australia laid out its starting position in a document submitted to the UNFCCC secretariat.
In the document, Australia said it wanted all countries to be working on a "common playing field" and that countries must be allowed to take action that would "sustain economic growth".
The action needed to be "appropriate to their national circumstances and policy choices" and any pledges "must include clear, credible and quantifiable emissions reduction commitments by all" that would "deliver real global outcomes".
This is the language of multi-lateral climate negotiations - broad, woolly and open to a wide array of interpretations.
As I've said, Australia and other countries won't need to put down on paper what they will actually do on emissions (their INDCs) until next March - about eight months before the Paris meeting.
That will at least give some time for negotiators and civil society groups to pour over the paperwork to see how big the gap is between the pledges and having a decent shot at keeping global temperatures below 2C (and lowering the risks of all the impacts that come from rising temperatures, such as increasingly furious extreme weather events and rising sea levels).
One overwhelming weakness of the UNFCCC process is that it can only proceed if every party agrees; meaning one country or a group of countries can dig the heals in until they get what they want.
Australia's ministerial pairing of Bishop and Robb will surely be looking to protect the nation's coal industry that vies with Indonesia as the biggest exporter of the fossil fuel in the world.
That could be why Australia wants any pledges from countries to be "appropriate to their national circumstances and policy choices".
Australia's policy choice is to do away with pricing greenhouse gas emissions and cut ambition for renewable energy.
The "national circumstance" appears to be the world's greatest defender of coal.
LOAD-DATE: December 3, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
163 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 3, 2014 Wednesday 9:06 AM GMT
2014 on track to be England's hottest year in over three centuries;
Unless December turns unusually cold, 2014 will beat 1995, 2006, 1990 and 2011 as the warmest year on record
BYLINE: Damian Carrington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 363 words
2014 is set to be England's hottest year in over 350 years, according to the world's longest continuous record, with climate change at least partly to blame. The whole world has had a warm year and global data, released later on Wednesday, is likely to indicate a new record.
Higher temperatures cause more evaporation and more rain, and 2014 began with England's wettest winter in over 250 years, leading to widespread flooding. Unless December turns unusually cold, 2014 will beat 1995, 2006, 1990 and 2011 as the warmest year on record. The average temperature in 2014 so far is almost 11.5C, about 1.5C higher than the long-term average.
"Looking at the averages for central England between January and November, 2014 is far and away the warmest on record so far," said Ed Hawkins, a climate scientist at the University of Reading. "Unless there is a relatively cool December, 2014 will be the warmest, as well as one of the wettest." He said there was only a 25% chance that 2014 would not be the hottest year.
The world's nations are currently meeting in Lima, Peru, at UN negotiations to seal a deal to cut carbon emissions and tackle climate change. The likely record warmth in 2014 would end a period of relatively slow rises in global surface temperatures.
This has been portrayed by climate sceptics as a halt in global warming, but greenhouse gases have continued to trap heat with over 90% of it being absorbed by the oceans. After the warmth of 2014, surface temperatures may now accelerate again.
"2014 has been a warm year so far for much of Europe and the globe, and may end up being the warmest year on record globally. The long-term trend, especially since 1950, is at least partly due to human activity," said Hawkins. "The signal of a warming climate is clearly visible even at the local [UK] scale where changes in climate are actually experienced, and this in one of the most climatically variable parts of the world."
The Central England Temperature data set, which covers the region between London, Bristol and Lancashire, is the longest continuous instrumental record in the world. It began recording monthly averages in 1659 and added daily averages in 1772.
LOAD-DATE: December 3, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
164 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 3, 2014 Wednesday 4:00 AM GMT
St Louis aims to ease social tensions as it joins 100 Resilient Cities programme;
The 35 newly announced 'resilient cities' include seven successful US applicants, the first two Chinese cities, plus London, Paris, Sydney, Barcelona and Milan
BYLINE: Oliver Milman in Singapore
SECTION: CITIES
LENGTH: 672 words
Strife-torn St Louis is among 35 cities around the world inducted on Wednesday into a $100m programme designed to strengthen their resilience to natural disaster, and enhance their ability to tackle issues such as violence, social exclusion and transport congestion.
The US city, which counts the troubled community of Ferguson among its suburbs, is judged to suffer from "high poverty and high crime rates". According to St Louis officials, upgrading infrastructure and improving public health and education will help ease social tensions there.
A total of 35 metropolitan areas have been added to the 100 Resilient Cities programme, an initiative funded by the Rockefeller Foundation which allocates financial and logistical support to each chosen city, including a dedicated "chief resilience officer". The first 33 cities in the programme were named last December.
A total of 331 cities across 94 countries applied to be part of this year's allocation. A team of judges was assigned by 100 Resilient Cities to choose places that have "demonstrated a dedicated commitment to building their own capacities to prepare for, withstand, and bounce back rapidly from shocks and stresses".
The second tranche of cities was named at a one-day conference in Singapore, where delegates also discussed the major threats facing cities over the coming decades: natural disasters, social unrest, economic inequality, access to healthcare, management of water and freedom of movement.
Eight Asian and Middle-Eastern cities - Phnom Penh, Deyang, Bangalore, Amman, Huangshi, Chennai, Singapore and Toyama - were chosen, along with four African cities: Arusha, Accra, Kigali and Enugu. Other successful applicants include London, Barcelona, Paris, Boston and Wellington.
Athens was chosen after a period in which the Rockefeller Foundation noted that unemployment has averaged over 50% for young people. More than a third of Athens' buildings are vulnerable to earthquakes, and the city is also baking in increasing heatwaves. But the foundation said the city is making "significant efforts" to expand welfare and healthcare services.
Also in Europe, Paris - while a "global icon" - has experienced community segregation due to urban gentrification, and its public transport system is under growing pressure, the foundation said. Lisbon is also dealing with creaking infrastructure, with city officials reporting that they are looking to do more to mitigate the impact of climate change.
Chicago is making a shift towards a technology-driven economy and is making strides to prepare itself for blizzards and floods, the foundation said. Phnom Penh suffers from regular energy blackouts and deteriorating air quality due to soaring car ownership. Meanwhile residents of Sydney, one of the world's more liveable cities, are paying soaring electricity bills due to obsolete infrastructure and are at increasing risk from climate change-driven heat waves.
Climate change, which the World Bank has warned poses a "serious threat to urban infrastructure, quality of life and entire urban systems", is a particular point of focus for the project. It is estimated that extreme weather events, which are increasingly fuelled by climate change, have already cost the world economy $2.5 trillion this century, with much of the damage caused in cities.
The newly announced 'resilient cities'
North America: Montreal (Canada); Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Santa Fe, St Louis, Tulsa (all US); San Juan (Puerto Rico); Juarez (Mexico); Santiago de los Caballeros (Dominican Republic). South America: Cali (Colombia); Santiago (Chile). Europe: Athens, Thessaloniki (both Greece); Barcelona (Spain); Belgrade (Serbia); Lisbon (Portugal); London (UK); Milan (Italy); Paris (France). Asia: Toyama (Japan); Chennai, Bangalore (both India); Deyang, Huangshi (both China); Singapore; Phnom Penh (Cambodia); Amman (Jordan). Africa: Accra (Ghana); Arusha (Tanzania); Kigali (Rwanda); Enugu (Nigeria). Oceania: Sydney (Australia); Wellington (New Zealand).
LOAD-DATE: December 3, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
165 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 3, 2014 Wednesday 12:02 AM GMT
Eating less meat essential to curb climate change, says report;
Global livestock industry produces more greenhouse gas emissions than transport but fear of a consumer backlash is preventing action, says Chatham House report
BYLINE: Damian Carrington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 795 words
Curbing the world's huge and increasing appetite for meat is essential to avoid devastating climate change, according to a new report. But governments and green campaigners are doing nothing to tackle the issue due to fears of a consumer backlash, warns the analysis from the thinktank Chatham House.
The global livestock industry produces more greenhouse gas emissions than all cars, planes, trains and ships combined, but a worldwide survey by Ipsos MORI in the report finds twice as many people think transport is the bigger contributor to global warming.
"Preventing catastrophic warming is dependent on tackling meat and dairy consumption, but the world is doing very little," said Rob Bailey, the report's lead author. "A lot is being done on deforestation and transport, but there is a huge gap on the livestock sector. There is a deep reluctance to engage because of the received wisdom that it is not the place of governments or civil society to intrude into people's lives and tell them what to eat."
The recent landmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that dietary change can "substantially lower" emissions but there is no UN plan to achieve that.
Past calls to cut meat eating by high-profile figures, from the chief of the UN's climate science panel to the economist Lord Stern, have been both rare and controversial. Other scientists have proposed a meat tax to curb consumption, but the report concludes that keeping meat eating to levels recommended by health authorities would not only lower emissions but also reduce heart disease and cancer. "The research does not show everyone has to be a vegetarian to limit warming to 2C, the stated objective of the world's governments," said Bailey.
The report builds on recent scientific studies which show that soaring meat demand in China and elsewhere could tip the world's climate into chaos. Emissions from livestock, largely from burping cows and sheep and their manure, currently make up almost 15% of global emissions. Beef and dairy alone make up 65% of all livestock emissions.
Appetite for meat is rocketing as the global population swells and becomes more able to afford meat. Meat consumption is on track to rise 75% by 2050, and dairy 65%, compared with 40% for cereals. By 2020, China alone is expected to be eating 20m tonnes more of meat and dairy a year.
Two recent peer-reviewed studies calculated that, without severe cuts in this trend, agricultural emissions will take up the entire world's carbon budget by 2050, with livestock a major contributor. This would mean every other sector, including energy, industry and transport, would have to be zero carbon, which is described as "impossible". The Chatham House report concludes: "Dietary change is essential if global warming is not to exceed 2C."
The consumer survey in the report, covering 12 nations including the US, China, India, Brazil and the EU bloc, found a link between the awareness of climate change and its impacts and the willingness to change behaviour. Acceptance that human activities cause climate change was significantly higher in China, India and Brazil than in the US, UK and Japan.
The good news, said Bailey, was that "the majority of future demand appears to be in the countries [like China and Brazil] that are the most receptive to change". He said it was "pretty disappointing" that in developed countries, where meat and dairy eating is highest, awareness of livestock's impact on the climate is low and willingness to change is low.
Brigitte Alarcon, sustainable food policy officer at WWF said: "Our LiveWell project has shown we can cut a quarter of our climate emissions from the European food supply chain by eating more pulses, fruit and vegetables and by reducing our meat consumption. National governments should improve food education to encourage healthy eating habits and environmental sustainability as a first step."
A spokesman for the UK government said: "Greenhouse gas emissions from the UK agricultural industry have fallen by more than 20% since 1990. While food choices can have an impact on emissions, well managed livestock also provide many environmental benefits including supporting biodiversity."
A separate survey by the Eating Better alliance, also published on Wednesday, shows that UK consumers are beginning to eat less meat. The YouGov poll found 20% saying they have cut the amount of meat they eat over the last year, with only 5% say they are eating more.
Prof Keith Richards, at the University of Cambridge and one of the researchers behind the two key scientific studies, said: "This is not a radical vegetarian argument; it is an argument about eating meat in sensible amounts as part of healthy, balanced diets."
LOAD-DATE: December 3, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
166 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 3, 2014 Wednesday
Late Edition - Final
In Real Time, Compiling Picture of Urban Ecology
BYLINE: By LISA W. FODERARO
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Metropolitan Desk; Pg. 24
LENGTH: 872 words
Deep in the woods at Alley Pond Park in Queens is a laboratory that looks like something out of a weather fanatic's wild imagination.
Attached to a lofty oak are a webcam and a wind vane, humidity and temperature sensors, rain gauges and instruments to measure solar radiation. The high-tech tools, which transmit information in real time, are part of the United States Forest Service's new ''smart forest'' initiative, in which data is collected from selected woodlands to help scientists manage landscapes in a changing climate.
At 635 acres, Alley Pond Park, at the head of Little Neck Bay, is the first urban forest to be included in the current crop of a half-dozen wired forests across the Northeast. And despite its location in one of the most populous and developed corners of the country, its natural features remain intact, including freshwater and saltwater wetlands, tidal flats, meadows and forests. The data collection began in 2011, when researchers at Drexel University teamed up with the city's parks department to study the sylvan nook inside the park, along with two other engineered green spaces in the city designed to capture storm-water runoff. But the Forest Service has now added Alley Pond Park to its Smart Forest Network.
Lindsey E. Rustad, a research ecologist with the Forest Service and co-director of the United States Department of Agriculture's Northeast Climate Hub, said that scientists had extensive data on pristine wilderness areas, but needed a better grasp of urban forests.
''We know relatively little about what's going on in these forest ecosystems,'' Dr. Rustad said on a tour of the outdoor laboratory at Alley Pond Park on an unseasonably warm November afternoon. ''Eighty percent of the population lives in urban areas, so understanding urban forest ecology is critical.''
Dr. Rustad added that in some ways the information gleaned from urban sites like Alley Pond Park would help steer policy-making decisions on climate change and resiliency elsewhere in the country. ''We can think of them as the canary in the coal mine because of their heat island effects, air pollution and development pressures,'' she said.
Hourly photographs taken by the webcam in the park, for instance, reveal precisely when buds burst each spring, when leaves open and when they die off. Over time, that information will give scientists a clearer picture of how quickly climate change is altering ecosystems.
For New York City, measuring things like soil moisture and soil temperature and determining when the trees leaf out each spring will also inform decisions, if not immediately, then down the road.
As the city nears completion of its million-tree planting campaign, the data collected from Alley Pond Park could, for example, guide future decisions about stewardship and species selection.
Since 2007, the city has planted 45,000 trees and shrubs in Alley Pond Park alone. ''You can see why we would want this information to ensure that the new trees and shrubs live and thrive,'' said Bram Gunther, the parks department's chief of forestry, horticulture and natural resources.
Mr. Gunther said he envisioned a time when armchair naturalists, park advocates and students could tap into the trove of information being pulled from the soil and sky at the site.
''Everyone is wired up, and now we're wiring up our forests and wetlands,'' Mr. Gunther said. ''Anyone who has a phone can be linked more closely to places like this in a new way.''
The sensors, located off a trail near the park's adventure course, are not immediately visible. Some are about 12 feet off the ground, and some are buried next to the tree. The site has been vandalized once since its installation.
On this afternoon, Lauren A. Smalls-Mantey, a doctoral candidate with Drexel's Sustainable Water Resource Engineering Laboratory, was standing waist-deep inside a circular pit containing modems, radios and other devices that collect and transmit the data.
''This is the equipment bunker,'' she said. ''This is where we log everything.''
Franco A. Montalto, an associate professor in Drexel's department of civil, architectural and environmental engineering, said that the availability of affordable digital sensors made it possible for him to gain access to that day's recordings from Alley Pond Park on his iPad and instantly compare them with data from the two experimental storm-water runoff sites in the city.
But despite the high-tech tools, Dr. Montalto insists on having eyes and ears verify the data. To that end, more than a dozen high school, college and graduate students have periodically trekked to the site at Alley Pond to sift soil through their fingers and take photos.
''To believe the sensors, you need validation,'' he said. ''Bad data is worse than no data.''
Eventually, scientists working at Alley Pond Park would like local schools to make the research part of their lessons.
''We're all excited about seeing the data online, but we'd like to put it in the classroom and curriculum,'' said Richard Hallett, a Forest Service ecologist based at the New York City Urban Field Station, a joint city-federal research center in nearby Fort Totten. ''It's teaching kids how to think and ask questions about the natural environment.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/03/nyregion/high-tech-woods-in-queens-help-us-monitor-urban-ecology.html
LOAD-DATE: December 3, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: Some of the instruments in Alley Pond Park in Queens, where the United States Forest Service is using sophisticated tools to better understand the effects of climate change. (A24)
Lauren A. Smalls-Mantey, a Ph.D. student at Drexel University, with the electronics that collect data from the sensors in Alley Pond Park, which are mounted on a tree and in the ground. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY RICHARD PERRY/THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A29)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
167 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 3, 2014 Wednesday
The International New York Times
A 'Showcase of Evolution' at Risk
BYLINE: By MATT CARR
SECTION: Section ; Column 0; OpEd; OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR; Pg.
LENGTH: 797 words
PUERTO AYORA, Ecuador -- Unesco calls the Galápagos Islands a ''living museum and showcase of evolution,'' but they are much more than that. The islands have become the world's foremost conservation laboratory, which scientists and the Ecuadorean government have promoted as a model on how humanity might prevent, or even reverse, the catastrophic species depletion that has taken place relentlessly ever since Charles Darwin first pondered the finches there.
These efforts matter more than ever now, as recent research suggests that Darwin was wrong when he rejected the natural catastrophe theory of evolution. According to a recent report from the World Wildlife Fund, populations of more than 10,000 vertebrate species declined by 52 percent on average between 1970 and 2010. In South America, the rate of depletion has reached an astonishing 83 percent. This is the process that scientists have called the ''sixth extinction,'' comparable to the previous five great mass extinctions on Earth. But unlike the others, the current destruction is entirely anthropogenic -- a result of human activity. Worst-case scenarios predict the extinction of one-fourth of Earth's species within 20 to 30 years if the rise in temperatures continues.
In recent years, scientists have cited climate change as a grave danger to the Galápagos Islands' ecosystem, which depends on the confluence of hot and cold ocean currents. Some studies have already found evidence that abrupt changes in sea temperatures have caused the degradation of coral reefs, and one scientist predicted that if global warming continued, Galápagos penguins might one day have to live in artificial ''condos.''
But climate change is only one of the threats. In 2007, Unesco designated the Galápagos to be a World Heritage Site, in danger from tourism, immigration, poaching and overfishing, but it later removed the region from the danger list on the grounds that Ecuador had taken vigorous action to protect it -- a decision that some conservationists criticized. Evidence of the conservation effort is visible everywhere on the islands: in the careful baggage screening before you arrive; in the decontamination mats when you get off the plane; in the specially designated paths that all visitors must follow; in the signs warning of invasive species brought in by ships; in the turtle breeding programs at the Darwin Foundation.
At first sight these efforts seem to be working. Step out of the old United States military airport on Baltra and frigate birds with pointed zigzag black wings lazily hover overhead. On boat trips, it's easy to spot sea turtles laboriously mating in the ocean, sea lions hanging out on rocks, or a marine iguana frozen to a rock. But this beguiling combination of ''Jurassic Park'' and Bosch's ''Garden of Earthly Delights'' is not immune to the manufactured threats that have wrought havoc elsewhere.
More than 170,000 tourists visit the Galápagos every year, and the proliferation of jerry-built cinder-block houses on Santa Cruz is evidence of the 30,000 people living on the islands, many of whom service the tourist industry. Salaries on the islands are three times as high as they are on the mainland, and the locals are not always concerned with conservation, despite the one-week course the government requires of new arrivals. Population growth has increased the risk of invasive species, which constitute some of the most destructive instruments of the ''sixth extinction.'' Humans no longer hunt turtles or iguanas, as they did in Darwin's time, but goats, donkeys, dogs, cats and rats are often just as destructive.
Eradication and captive breeding programs have eliminated some of these threats. Goats have been removed from Pinta Island, and electronically tagged ''Judas goats'' are helping park rangers detect goats on other islands. Feral dogs no longer terrorize the iguana population of North Seymour, and the introduction of ladybugs has driven back the cottony scale bugs that feed on indigenous trees and plants.
Jorge Carrión, the director of environmental management of the Galápagos National Park Service, said it was a success that 95 percent of the species that existed on the islands during Darwin's time were still present. The techniques being developed to deal with invasive species, and the research into the impact of global warming, offer lessons to the rest of the world.
Failure to preserve the Galápagos Islands' unique environment would not only be a disaster for one of the most extraordinary places on Earth, it would also constitute further evidence that the catastrophe quietly unfolding across our planet might be unstoppable, leaving future generations with only videos and photographs to tell of the strange and wonderful creatures that once lived here.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/03/opinion/a-showcase-of-evolution-at-risk.html
LOAD-DATE: December 3, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Op-Ed
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
168 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Op-Talk)
December 3, 2014 Wednesday
Are the Oscars Going to Heaven ('Interstellar') or to Earth ('Birdman')?
BYLINE: FRANK BRUNI and ROSS DOUTHAT
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 3121 words
HIGHLIGHT: Frank and Ross debate Christopher Nolan’s politics and swap some favorite performances (Rene Russo and Benedict Cumberbatch). And one columnist wants Nolan to stop letting his pretensions get in the way of his adventures.
Ross Douthat: It's a pleasure to be back with you, here in the fall movie season's eye-of-the-storm moment, when we get a chance to take a breath and catch up on all the prestige movies released before Thanksgiving - or, you know, take the kids to "Penguins of Madagascar," depending - before the Christmas hurricane arrives. And I'm going to start us off by talking about the biggest, most ambitious and in certain ways the most political of the fall releases that made landfall last month: Christopher Nolan's "Interstellar."
By way of preamble: I am not a true believer in the Church of Nolan; I'm more like a churchgoer who appreciates the beauty of the liturgy but cocks his head skeptically during the sermon and dissents from several crucial doctrines. To me, he's the master of the near-great film: I have never not been entertained by a Nolan movie, but I've also never come away thinking, "that was, at last, a masterpiece." His closest-to-perfect film, "Memento," is too much of a claustrophobic stunt to earn that title, and the movies that set his wildest fans to raving - "Inception" and above all "The Dark Knight" - are impressive blockbusters ill-served by the attempt to elevate them into the cinematic equivalent of Shakespeare. Watch "Inception" as a heist movie, and it's great; watch it as an exploration of dreams and the unconscious, and ... no. Likewise "The Dark Knight," in which Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker is several degrees more brilliant than the movie's larger meditation on politics, leadership and terrorism. (I'm in the small camp that actually preferred "The Dark Knight Rises.")
I sometimes feel like I should be more of a believer, though, because Nolan is pretty clearly one of the more politically conservative A-list directors working in Hollywood today. This isn't just my idiosyncratic opinion: There are obvious, true-to-the-script reasons his "Batman" movies were slammed as apologias for fascism and hailed as defenses of George W. Bush's war on terror. But neither take was quite right: In reality, those films were apologias for an old-fashioned sort of Toryism, as British as Nolan himself, which defends basic civic order against corrupt, radical and nihilistic alternatives and lionizes to-the-manor-born aristocrats insofar as they take up for the common people's interests.
And this is part of what makes the politics of "Interstellar" quite interesting, because Nolan's space-exploration movie is right-wing in a different, much more American key than the "peace, order and noblesse oblige" Toryism of the "Batman" trilogy. In my review for National Review, I suggested that this is the kind of movie that you might expect Peter Thiel, the libertarian tech mogul and frequent critic of what he sees as a loss of imagination and technological ambition in the West, to bankroll and support: "Interstellar" opens in a world where the textbooks have been rewritten to pretend that the moon landings were a Cold War propaganda stunt, and it ends in a world where ... well, I don't think it gives anything away to tell people that the title doubles as the movie's vision of the human future. Which makes it basically a long brief for the proposition that human beings - and especially Americans, and especially Americans played by Matthew McConaughey - can do just about anything they set their minds to do, and that the biggest threat to our future isn't overreach or arrogance or technological blowback (the atmospheric "blight" threatening the planet in the movie is very conspicuously not the same thing as man-made climate change, to some viewers' great disappointment) but defeatism, declinism and self-doubt.
My fundamental sympathies are more Tory than libertarian, but I still liked Nolan's foray into Apollo-era American optimism - not least because Thiel and others have a plausible case, I think, that a lot of contemporary sci-fi really has become dystopian to a fault. Especially at the movies, and especially where space exploration is concerned: Whether it's the predators of the "Alien" franchise or just the cold, dark night of "Gravity" and "Apollo 13," a lot of contemporary space-faring stories make the cosmos seem like something best left unexplored. So to me the long middle section of "Interstellar," where McConaughey and Co. are hopscotching from one strange planet to another in search of a new home for the human race, was a welcome and, yes, even inspiring callback to golden-age sci-fi.
I only wish I'd liked the ending better: Once again, Nolan's pretensions got the better of his entertainer's craft; he seems to have felt the need to imitate or outdo Stanley Kubrick's "2001," to deliver a big reveal that somehow marries the mystical and the material, when he would have been better off just sticking with his astronauts and their adventures. So once again, and perhaps predictably, my verdict on a Nolan movie is "near-great." How about yours?
Frank Bruni: I'm glad you started with "Interstellar," because, wow, that is one chewy movie. It's about the (quantifiable!) power of love. It's about the tug of family. It's about parental guilt. It's about filial rage. It's about faith. It's about doubt. It's about human glory. It's about human treachery.
Oh, yeah, and in the midst of all that, a whole lot of travel through space occurs.
I'm astounded by Nolan's ambition, and I'm struck by how his own drive, manifest in the fact and scope and spectacle of the movie, complements one of its principal arguments, which is that we can't and shouldn't turn our backs on the grandest of goals. Nolan, a director who dreams bigger than just about any other director out there, has made a movie about a band of would-be saviors who are dreaming bigger than everyone around them.
But I find its politics a bit more ambiguous or flexible or protean or noncommittal (choose your adjective) than you do. I'm amused by this zest to label it conservative, although I understand how hungry conservatives must be to claim a Hollywood A-list director (or, for that matter, star). Sure, Nolan's "Batman" movies lend themselves to some of the interpretations you present. And, yes, "Interstellar" fudges on what's causing the terrible weather that troubles the planet, declining to cast its lot with global warming.
But that strikes me as an artistic decision, and a prudent one at that, not a policy position. Nolan clearly didn't set out to make a polemic about climate change, and I'm guessing that he understood that any digression in that direction might eclipse the movie's other interests.
He did, however, make a movie that rues the dangers of ignoring and devaluing science and erudition. And while plenty of liberals ignore science - look at the alarmingly low vaccination rates for children of affluent parents in Hollywood enclaves that lean Democratic - there are more examples right now of conservatives committing that error and even suggesting that too much trust in science breeds too little respect for God. I'll point you to Senator James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican soon to be the chairman of the Senate's Committee on Environment and Public Works, who argues against man-made climate change by citing biblical verse and who said: "God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."
There are additional aspects of "Interstellar" that don't seem to be particularly conservative or at least easily politically defined. Although I saw the movie more than a month ago and have grown a bit fuzzy on details, I believe that its vision of how the human race will wind up transplanted to, and replicating on, a distant planet is not one that reproductive puritans would endorse. There's certainly more lab equipment and disembodied fluid in the equation than, say, Catholic doctrine smiles upon. And here again, we have a portrait of science not as a challenge to God or the "natural" order of things but as our salvation.
Beyond which, "Interstellar" is very much about the profound sacrifices that an individual must make for the sake of a larger community. (Several spoilers are about to come. Beware!) The greater good trumps even the nuclear family, and so McConaughey must tuck himself into a spaceship and lose himself in the cosmos even if the passage-of-time physics of this means that he leaves the earth before he gets to see his daughter turn into Jessica Chastain - a thrill that no parent should be denied! - and doesn't return until she's already become Ellen Burstyn.
Yes, "Interstellar" says that a person's greatness should never be underestimated, belittled, shackled. But I'm not sure Ayn Rand would have grooved to Nolan's vision. This is ultimately a movie about our shared investments, our overlapping and entwined destinies. It's about the triumph of Matthew McConaughey's quivering munificence over Matt Damon's clenched selfishness. Out there on the surrealistic tundra of that distant planet where they grapple, it isn't just two of cinema's foremost hunks doing battle. It's a contest of different impulses, different ideologies, and I don't think they fit as neatly into any political scheme as some of the movie's analysts would like.
Douthat: I'll cop to always being a little overeager to discover political kindred spirits in an industry that isn't exactly thick with them, but I don't think I'm reaching that far with my read on Nolan's politics. Put it this way: If a filmmaker made a movie that put Tea Party rhetoric in the mouth of its villain, I think it would be fair to read that as a liberal message (and, indeed, most conservative pop culture critics would). So it's reasonable to read the class-war, Occupy Wall Street rhetoric that Bane spews in "The Dark Knight Rises" the same way - as a right-leaning filmmaker's none-too-subtle dig at certain of-the-moment left-wing ideas. Again, I think a lot of the left-wing critiques of the "Batman" movies were overdrawn or off the mark, but I don't think folks at Salon or Jacobin were wrong to recognize a kind of ideological adversary in the man behind the trilogy.
But I also agree with your emendation to my point about "Interstellar": Nolan's sci-fi vision, despite occasional spiritual-ish elements, is basically right-wing in a libertarian rather than a religious or socially conservative key. I don't know if I'd quite describe the film as a proof that its director is a "die-hard materialist," as this Dissolve essay does - there's too much gooey stuff in there about the cosmic power of Love - but at the very least he's at pains to try to keep his biggest mysteries somehow natural rather than divine, even when doing so requires a kind of jerry-rigging that I thought made the ending less perfect than it could have been. And yes, part of the movie's optimistic vision, especially at the end, is also plainly transhumanist in a way that libertarians tend to appreciate but most religious conservatives consider, well, suspect to say the least. (Which is another reason I name-checked Peter Thiel's ideas in discussing the film, since some of his anti-stagnationist seed money has gone to transhumanist projects - though, to bring things full circle, he's also some sort of religious believer as well.
I'll save further rambling about science and society for a future column (that's what they're for, right?) and pivot to a different kind of transhumanism - the kind on display in two of the best-reviewed movies of the last month, "Birdman" and "Nightcrawler," whose contrasting titles nail their differences quite neatly. The former has a "Batman" link, since it's about a movie star played by Michael Keaton who used to play Bat - sorry, Birdman in the 1990s, and who gave the superhero thing up in search of more self-serious work, a choice that's led him to the theater (he's doing a self-scripted, self-starring Raymond Carver adaptation on Broadway) and to the brink of what seems like a nervous breakdown ... unless, of course, the telekinetic powers he thinks he's developing (while the voice of Birdman growls in his head) are actually somehow real, a possibility that the movie does not at all exclude. I'm still trying to figure out what I thought about it (besides the wish that Michael Keaton, Ed Norton and Naomi Watts could appear together in about 60 more movies), but my provisional capsule summary is that this is "Black Swan" for relative optimists, which I'm pretty sure counts as praise. (At the very least it's the best - and least ponderous - work that the director, Alejandro González Iñárritu, has done in English.)
In "Nightcrawler," meanwhile, what's being transcended are a different kind of human limits - not physical but moral, when Jake Gyllenhaal's creepy, bug-eyed revenant makes a devil's bargain with a City of Angels cable-news producer (Rene Russo) to supply the bleeds-and-leads footage that her limping newscast desperately needs. If "Birdman" sometimes felt a little too opaque and artsy, "Nightcrawler" sometimes feels too on-the-nose, and also a bit dated in the targets of its moral outrage. (That local-TV news is exploitative was a big insight 20 years ago; now it feels a bit like attacking tape decks or VHS.) But Russo is really fantastic, and reason enough to see the film. (As an aside: I'm saving my thoughts on the "Hunger Games" cycle for a future Moviegoers, but I wholeheartedly endorse this argument, from Vulture's Kyle Buchanan, that an "unboring" Oscars would see both Russo and Jennifer Lawrence nominated for their "Nightcrawler" and "Mockingjay" work.)
Gyllenhaal is all-in but pretty much one note - he's a sociopath from the moment we meet him till the end - while his older co-star offers something much more recognizably, well, human: a mix of desperation and corruption, and a portrayal of how easily the two can feed each other.
I think you've seen both. What say you about them? Oscar, Oscar, or thumbs down?
Bruni: Ross, you're going to be shocked, but, well, I disagree with you.
About Rene Russo, that is. Now I want to be clear: I love me some Rene Russo. I have seen the remake of "The Thomas Crown Affair" several times - and mostly because of her. From the moment she appears until the final seconds, you can't take your eyes off her. And it isn't simply because she never looked more gorgeous. It's because she thrums with life: with hunger for her quarry, with anger about his elusiveness, with anticipatory sorrow for how he is probably going to break her heart. And yet the performance never becomes showy.
In "Nightcrawler" she's never showy enough, at least not for me. I kept wondering what an actress with more acid in her could have done with the part. I kept thinking of Faye Dunaway. It's funny: Dunaway is the point of reference for Russo's performance in "Crown," having played Russo's role in the original. And Dunaway is again the point of reference for Russo's performance in "Nightcrawler," which is, in its way, "Network" Lite. Or, rather, "Network"-meets-"Taxi Driver" Lite.
Now to a point of agreement: I found "Nightcrawler" dated as well. That's the perfect word. (See, Ross, I can praise you, too! Just don't get used to it.) The movie is a hell of a ride, executed with style, and my interest never flagged, but it's all about local TV news and one man's view of it as the pinnacle of all excitement and glamour. And I hardly know anyone who watches those newscasts anymore! The movie might have made more sense with Gyllenhaal as a blogger. Or a guy who Tweets. Or an addict for Instagram.
"Birdman" for me had a similarly dislocating, disruptive element, and it was those disembodied voice-overs from, well, the Keaton character's dark alter ego? His "Birdman" past? His father-in-law in Wichita? They didn't work for me.
But, wow, the rest of the movie worked, and for the same reason that a previous movie of Iñárritu's, "21 Grams," did. He gives amazing actors juicy parts and then carves out the right space and enough time for those actors and those parts to breathe. He has a special kind of patience.
I thought Norton was astonishing and I thought Emma Stone was a revelation and Watts is always fantastic. And of course I took special interest in the bits with Lindsay Duncan as the theater critic of The New York Times. Her interactions with Keaton's character are preposterous, but Duncan has the right amount of poisonous fun with them. She should have traded places with Russo in "Nightcrawler."
Is there an Oscar in that group of "Birdman" performers? I wouldn't bet against it. I'd give Norton Best Supporting Actor in a flash, and I noticed that the National Board of Review did precisely that on Tuesday. The board decreed a tie for Best Actor between Oscar Isaac, for "A Most Violent Year," and Keaton, for "Birdman." Keaton also won best actor this week at the Gotham Awards, for independent films.
But I'm less wowed by Keaton than by Benedict Cumberbatch in "The Imitation Game." He's absolutely terrific, though the movie is otherwise a tad too neat and clean for my tastes. I craved something messier, something that got under the skin and elicited more than a genteel sigh or the littlest rumor of a tear.
"The Imitation Game" did get me to thinking about two issues that both of us have written about and that get addressed in The Times frequently: diversity and education. In the movie, which depicts the life of Alan Turing, he's something of a grouch and a bit of a snob and a through-and-through oddball. He's also furtively gay in an era when that was broadly seen as a perversion and an affliction. He doesn't fit in; he's more easily ignored than embraced. And there are indeed plenty of people poised to ostracize and exile him.
But he just so happens to be integral to the end of a devastating, epically bloody, unimaginably costly war. He's someone with knowledge and gifts that the world can't do without. And I wondered, as I watched the movie, how close we came to not getting that knowledge or those gifts. I wondered how many visionaries and geniuses we've been denied - and how many we continue to deny ourselves - because of our talent for putting people in boxes, because of an insufficient effort to free people from those boxes, and because we're not dedicated and smart about letting as many people as possible reach their potential.
So maybe "Imitation Game," like "Interstellar," is in one sense about the need to unshackle excellence. And I think that's an imperative that people of all political persuasions endorse, no?
Let's pick this up later this month or early next, when there'll be yet more Oscar talk and we may even be able to weigh in on "Unbroken." Angelina, here we come!
LOAD-DATE: December 3, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
169 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 2, 2014 Tuesday 10:01 PM GMT
Conservative lobby group Alec plans anti-environmental onslaught;
Corporate lobbying network plans to draft bills attacking protections Bills will reportedly aim to expand offshore oil drilling and cut EPA budget
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
SECTION: US NEWS
LENGTH: 649 words
The corporate lobbying network American Legislative Exchange Council, commonly known as Alec, is planning a new onslaught on a number of environmental protections next year when Republicans take control of Congress and a number of state legislatures.
The battle lines of Alec's newest attack on environmental and climate measures will be formally unveiled on Wednesday, when the group begins three days of meetings in Washington DC.
Alec, described by its opponents as a corporate bill mill, has suffered an exodus of tech companies from its ranks recently because of its extreme positions - especially its promotion of climate denial.
Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo and Yelp have all left Alec. Google flatly accused Alec of lying about climate change, when it severed its connections with the group last September.
Despite the setbacks, Alec remains focused on pushing back government regulation and blocking efforts to fight climate change in 2015, according to documents posted on its website in preparation for Wednesday's gathering.
On the agenda for its environment and energy task force are draft model bills that will seek to disband the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), expand offshore oil drilling, and weaken environmental protections for smog and other air pollutants, as well as roll back protections for endangered species.
The top priority appears to be rolling back the main pillar of Obama's climate action plan: new rules to limit carbon pollution from power plants now being rolled out by the EPA.
Under the most extreme proposal, Alec would urge Congress to gut the EPA entirely, cutting its environmental protection budget by 75%, and delegating its powers to 300 state agency employees.
Alec has also proposed two measures that would deter states from adopting EPA's power plant rules.
Meanwhile, those at the meetings are scheduled to get a briefing from Richard Berman, an operative who specialises in using dirty tricks to overcome opposition to oil and gas projects.
"The goal is to clearly block any action whatsoever on climate change. It's not to shape action on climate change," David Goldston, head of government affairs for the Natural Resources Defense Council told a conference call on Tuesday.
However, Alec is proposing bills that would roll back new ozone protections just announced last week, and vastly expand oil drilling off the Alaskan and Atlantic coasts and in the Gulf of Mexico.
Alec does not generally welcome media coverage of its activities. The group rejected the Guardian's request to attend this week's meeting.
The group is also facing growing public scrutiny of its position on climate change. More than 100 liberal and environmental groups on Tuesday called on state legislators to reject Alec's climate denial.
But behind the scenes, the organisation has had a huge influence on conservative politics in the states - and in some instances has seen its proposed model bills adopted almost wholesale by Republican legislators.
Those model policies adopted at the conference in Washington will eventually be introduced as prospective pieces of legislation by state legislators and Alec members around the country.
Over the last year, the organisation pursued bills to overturn environmental protections and weaken state regulations promoting the use of renewable energy sources in more than a dozen states. The majority of those efforts were beaten back.
The coming year could be a banner year for Alec, with Republicans taking control of both houses of Congress in January. Republicans also gained ground in the states in the midterm elections.
For 2015, the NRDC said it expected the lobbying group to focus its anti-EPA efforts on coal-heavy states.
"Ohio, Missouri, Illinois - states where the coal industry is especially prevalent are places where I expect these things to come up," said Aliya Haq, the NRDC's climate change special projects director.
LOAD-DATE: December 2, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
170 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 2, 2014 Tuesday 6:33 PM GMT
Tougher government attitudes on climate change key to business action;
A new study shows that while higher prices have forced change, stronger policy action has prompted British retailers to move faster than their US counterparts to reduce greenhouse emissions
BYLINE: Rory Sullivan and Andy Gouldson
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 899 words
The UK has been seen by some as a climate change leader, partly because of its early adoption of a legally binding target to reduce its 1990 levels of emissions by 80% by 2050.
In contrast, the US has been seen as a laggard, in both domestic and international arenas. While the recent US-China climate change agreement (in which the US has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28% below its 2005 levels by 2025) may signal a change, it remains to be seen how successful the US will be at delivering on these commitments.
But do government attitudes to climate change influence corporate attitudes and practice on climate change?
We have recently completed a review of the climate change practices and processes of major retailers in the US and the UK. While certain of the sector's activities and operations are regulated (ie vehicle efficiency standards) and others are influenced by wider climate change policy (ie through electricity prices), the sector's overall emissions are not directly regulated, in either the US or the UK.
Not surprisingly for a sector where marginal changes in prices can have a large impact on sales or profitability, we found energy prices to be an important influence on actions taken. Improving energy efficiency in buildings and transport dates back to at least the mid-1990s, for retailers on both sides of the Atlantic. However, while broadly the same actions (ie improving the efficiency of electrical equipment) have been taken, there is a noticeable difference in the outcomes that have been achieved.
Driven by the higher energy prices that have prevailed in the UK over the past decade, UK retailers have reduced their energy and/or emissions intensity by an average of approximately 4% per annum over periods of 5 or 7 years. In contrast, US retailers reduced their energy and/or emissions intensity by an average of slightly less than 3% per annum over the same time period.
Important though prices are, the political and policy context is also hugely important. In the UK, the 2005 to 2007 period was a critical tipping point. This period saw the publication of the fourth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the publication of the UK government sponsored Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, the introduction of the EU Emissions Trading System, the introduction of national policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and a significant increase in the level of UK and European business press attention on climate change.
UK companies commented that at this point, they saw high energy prices and strong policy action on climate change as "inevitable". Most UK retailers have now set long-term overall targets for their own operations. These targets, if achieved, could see UK retailers reducing the total greenhouse emissions from their operations and transport by more than 1.5% per year over the period through to 2020.
UK retailers also have a range of initiatives directed at reducing greenhouse emissions from their supply chains. The major supermarkets have established programmes to help their suppliers improve their environmental performance, and see these efforts as having the potential to deliver significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
While UK retailers saw an alignment of pressures, US retailers were faced with a less clear cut picture, with strong political opposition to policy action on climate change, and energy prices continuing to be much lower than in Europe. As a result, they saw little need to go beyond a relatively short-term, narrowly defined approach to climate change.
The majority of US retailers expect their absolute emissions to in fact grow over time, with business growth swamping efficiency gains. In addition, US retailers appear to have paid relatively little attention to their supply chains. Where they have engaged with their suppliers, the focus is largely on those aspects that directly affect the retailer (ie reducing product packaging), rather than on issues such as production processes or supplier energy management.
It is clear from our research that government attitudes on climate change directly and indirectly affect the manner in which companies respond to climate change. Higher energy prices and strong political signals make it more likely that companies will take a proactive approach on climate change.
Put another way, if we want to see climate change leadership at the corporate level, we first need to see climate change leadership at the national level.
Dr Rory Sullivan is a senior research fellow for the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economicsand Policy at the University of Leeds. Andy Gouldson is professor of Environmental Policy at the University of Bristol and deputy director of the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy
Read more stories like this:
Blueprint for Better Business gives companies a 'get out of jail free card'
Apple CEO Tim Cook at Climate Week: 'the time for inaction has passed'
UK social enterprises expanding abroad and overcoming cultural differences
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: December 2, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
171 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 2, 2014 Tuesday 2:56 PM GMT
Science won't win over the climate change sceptics - we need stories;
You don't have to be a climate policy expert to be inspired by stories. People respond better to climate change solutions than a bitter argument about its causes
BYLINE: Adam Corner
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 793 words
This week marks the five year anniversary of 'climategate', a rather grandiose title given to the theft and online publication of controversial email correspondence between climate scientists in November 2009. Since this date, no fewer than six separate inquiries have rejected claims by climate sceptics that the emails contained evidence of scientists manipulating data.
But if you're scratching your head trying to remember exactly where you were when this momentous event took place, you are in good company. Although the affair was big news around the water cooler of climate science departments, and has continued to reverberate around the blogosphere, there is little evidence that ordinary members of the public either noticed or cared about the claims.
In fact, although the sceptic bogeymen (and they are mostly men) continue to draw the ire of scientists and environmental campaigners, there is increasing evidence that the contrarian positions of climate sceptics are becoming irrelevant for most ordinary people.
In COIN's latest report, Young Voices, we spoke to young people in the UK aged between 18 and 25 about their views on climate change. Most were not interested in fighting a battle against organised scepticism. Debating solutions, rather than the science, was deemed a much higher priority.
The 'solutions not science' mantra is likely to be a much more effective method of overcoming scepticism overall, rather than slogging it out in the scientific arena. A new paper by scholars Troy Campbell and Aaron Kay confirmed what several previous studies have hinted at: Republican aversion to the conclusions of climate science diminishes when presented with responses that fit more closely with their values (policies that don't challenge the logic of the free market, for example).
This insight is also reflected in 10:10's #ItsHappening campaign, which promotes creative ways of tackling climate change from across the globe on social media. The logic of the campaign is simple: show people that solutions are not only possible but already proliferating, and a powerful sense of momentum will grow.
Interestingly, though, a study conducted in Canada suggests that people don't necessarily need to know much about climate policies in order to support them. There is no direct relationship between policy knowledge and support for them.
In other words, you don't have to be a climate policy expert to be inspired by positive examples of low-carbon solutions, in the same way that it is not necessary to understand the physics of the greenhouse effect to be concerned about the impacts of climate change.
More important than the actual solutions are the stories that grow around them, and the meanings people attribute to different technologies and ideas. The success of #ItsHappening is most likely driven by a sense of social momentum rather than anything inherently 'likeable' about the projects shared.
Consider the contrasting ways that people respond to wind farms. Those who support onshore wind equate the turbines with progress, and feel reassured about the prospect of a clean energy future. And those who oppose them tell powerful stories about money-grabbing 'outsiders' and pledge solidarity in the face of undemocratic imposition on their community. Crucially, there is nothing written in the blades and motors of the turbines themselves that underpins these narratives. They are entirely social in nature.
We shouldn't get too carried away with the idea that communicating climate solutions is a panacea for public lethargy. Climate answers breathe life into an otherwise frustratingly arid subject because of the stories they tell.
This means that telling the most powerful and compelling stories is the key - stories that relate to the aspects of people's lives they care passionately about.
It is encouraging that there is a growing movement away from 'myth-busting' and towards 'solution sharing'. But we should remember what dozens of studies on climate change communication have taught us: people fit the facts to their pre-existing narratives about the world, which are first and foremost a product of their values and political outlook.
A climate solution is only as good as the story that surrounds it.
Read more like this:
Can art inspire climate change action? An ice installation aims to do just that
Cancel developing countries' debt in exchange for climate change action
Our obsession with heroic sustainability leaders will leave us all disappointed
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: December 2, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
172 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 2, 2014 Tuesday 1:53 PM GMT
12 paths to strengthening food security and nutrition in an unstable world;
In the face of climate change, conflicts and disease, our panel suggest how to ensure access to nutritious food for all
BYLINE: Anna Leach
SECTION: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS NETWORK
LENGTH: 926 words
Dominic Schofield, Canada director, Gain, New York, USA, @dschofieldGAIN
Connect farming to better food: It's important that agriculture and nutrition work better together. Across the entire agricultural chain there are opportunities to make food more nutritious: from seed choices and growing techniques to processing food and bringing products to market.
Support female farmers: Women produce more than half of all the food that is grown in the world yet receive less than 10% of credit offered to small-scale farmers, only 7% of agricultural extension services and own less than 1% of all land. The FAO estimates that if female farmers had the same access as men, agricultural output in 34 developing countries would rise by an estimated average of up to 4%. This could reduce the number of undernourished people in those countries by as much as 17%, translating to up to 150 million fewer hungry people.
Duncan Williamson, food policy manager, WWF UK, Goldaming, UK @DuncWilliamson
Save water: We are growing more and more thirsty crops, such as sugar cane, for either direct use or to feed to livestock. This is the primary issue we need to look at: 70% of available freshwater is used to grow food and we are not using it effectively.
Change eating habits: Diversifying diets is key for environmental reasons. The two biggest crops globally are sugar and soy. Neither of which we really need to grow. We don't need to keep adding sugar to our food. We use soy to feed to animals. Currently in the developed world we eat more meat than ever before, way beyond what we need to a healthy diet.
Don't blame population growth: We have enough resources for everyone if we choose to distribute things better. We already grow enough food for over 10 billion people, we just waste 30%, and feed large chunks to our cars, power stations and livestock. The problem is consumption. Nowhere is this more clear than in our food choices. We need to look to our plates and more to lower impact diets.
Grow food before fuel: Crops, the water used and the land they are grown on should not be used produce fuel before food. But I support using the inedible part of crops to produce fuel, that way we can get a double premium from one set of inputs. It should not result in more land being turned over to large scale agriculture at the expense of indigenous land rights and biodiversity.
Dennis Aviles Irahola, sustainable agriculture and gender adviser, Oxfam GB, London, UK, @oxfamgb
Promote independent sustainable agriculture: Dependence on external inputs is one factor that increases food insecurity. Sustainable agriculture, by looking to use in-farm resources and replicate natural dynamics (for example reinforcing positive influence between crops, or crops-trees, or trees-livestock) creates a more reliable and resilient farm. It could take years in the worst cases, but a gradual transition to more sustainable agriculture is possible.
Diversify incomes: A climate-related disaster affects self production and availability of food in local markets, however people with a diversified income cope much better with food insecurity than those relying only on self production. On the other hand, as we have seen during the last two food crises that people relying on self production were more resilient.
Sue Willsher, senior associate research and policy, Tearfund, London, UK, @suewillsher
Encourage cooperation: Self-help groups and cooperatives are effective for securing greater food security at local level. NGOs have a role to play in helping share information with communities about appropriate technologies.
Make progress at climate talks: Climate change is already having a huge impact on global food chains and disrupting agricultural production. The global climate community has been very slow in dealing with this and even discussing agriculture and food security in the climate negotiations. We need a fair and legally binding deal on climate agreed at next year's UN Climate talks in Paris.
Melinda Fones Sundell, senior adviser, Swedish International Agriculture Network Initiative, Stockholm, Sweden, @SIANIAgri
Diversify and localise: There are two ideas which underpin food security: diversification and local empowerment. Farmers need diversified cropping patterns for income and environmental reasons; people need diversified diets for health reasons. The more local the production, processing and marketing is, the more secure the consumer.
Look after the soil: Large scale hydroponics (growing only in water) is not likely for the near future, so we are dependent on the soil for our crops. Many practitioners advocate the " landscape approach " where all biologically based activities are recognised as interdependent and planned to be sustainable.
Read the full Q&A here.
Read more stories like this :
· Left alone to tend farm and family: reaching female farmers in rural India· Malnutrition in Tanzania: will food fortification laws work?· Invisible crises: have donors forgotten the hungry in Chad?· Advertisement feature: Building markets for nutritious food
Join our community of development professionals and humanitarians. Follow @GuardianGDP on Twitter.
LOAD-DATE: December 2, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
173 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 2, 2014 Tuesday 1:43 PM GMT
Yeb San~o, vocal critic of west, dropped from Lima climate talks;
Curious absence of the Philippines' key negotiator could be due to political pressure from rich countries ahead of crucial climate negotiations, say NGOs
BYLINE: John Vidal
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 713 words
Yeb San~o, one of the most vocal critics of rich countries in international global warming negotiations, has not arrived at the latest UN climate conference in Lima and is believed to have been dropped by the Filipino government as its chief negotiator.
The move coincides with the Philippines apparently leaving the 'like minded developing countries' (LMDC) group, a powerful bloc of nations regarded by the US and Europe as the main obstacle to a new global agreement.
San~o, who has headed the Filipino diplomatic delegation to the talks for three years and is director of the government's climate change commission, became one of the few iconic figures in the 2012 talks after an emotional speech when he broke down in tears and called on rich countries to act urgently for the climate.
At the UN climate summit in Warsaw last year, San~o and 300 other delegates fasted for the duration of the talks when his father's home city of Tacloban was flattened by Typhoon Yolanda, one of the world's strongest recorded cyclones. Last month Sano walked 1,000km from the centre of the Filipino capital Manila to Tacloban.
As another powerful typhoon developed in the Pacific ocean and headed towards the Philippines this week, neither San~o nor the Filipino government responded to calls.
However, a video of San~o was published online on Monday, where he did not explain his absence at the Lima talks but said he would be fasting during the conference because he cared "about the future of this world" and to avert a "climate crisis".
NGOs said his absence was likely to be linked to his growing reputation and to rich countries' hardening attitude to political opposition ahead of crucial meetings.
"[San~o's absence] has certainly left many wondering if this could be due to pressure being brought to bear on small countries like the Philippines by those whose interests such powerful voices threaten," said Friends of the Earth UK's Asad Rehman.
Christian Aid's senior climate change adviser, Mohamed Adow, said: "It is strange that he is not here to join us in Lima. Yeb's absence is very curious given the significant leadership role he has played at these talks, fighting for the rights of people suffering from climate change. People are scratching their heads as to why Yeb is not on the delegation anymore. He is a ray of light in an often dark process and I hope he has not been excluded from the delegation because some people don't like the important truth he tells."
Voltaire Alferez, co-ordinator of Aksyon Klima Pilipinas (AKP), a network of more than 40 Filipino organisations working on climate change, said the government should explain why he was not in Lima. "We are at a loss as to why San~o is not present here in Lima. His absence is greatly felt, especially by civil society members who he inspired in Warsaw. They must focus on the negotiations instead of bickering among themselves."
There is a long history of industrialised countries exerting strong pressure on poorer countries in advance of major climate negotiations. Veteran negotiator Bernarditas Muller was "neutralised" ahead of the Copenhagen meeting in 2009 after she was identified as a leading opponent of the US position and dropped by the Filipino government.
Muller had gained a reputation as a "dragon woman" who would not yield to intense diplomatic pressure in negotiations. She now represents the Philippines on the Green Climate Fund, a key institution which developed countries have recently pledged $10bn (£6.4bn) to, and which is intended to raise $100bn a year to help developing countries adapt to climate change and to mitigate emissions.
The Philippines, a former US colony and important development, trade and security partner to the US, has "a special relationship" with Washington. It receives over $6bn a year in US foreign investment.
The LMDC group represents more than 50% of the world's population and includes China, Venezuela, India and Indonesia. They traditionally negotiate as a group until the last few hours of the talks.
The Lima meeting, which has entered its second day, is the last summit before countries expect to sign a binding climate deal next year in Paris. Politicians from over 190 countries will arrive next week to take over negotiations.
LOAD-DATE: December 2, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
174 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 2, 2014 Tuesday 10:57 AM GMT
The £2.3bn for flood defences in England is good news but still not enough;
Ministers can at last rightly claim they are spending more than before - but only because they cut the previous budget
BYLINE: Damian Carrington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 513 words
The £2.3bn for flood defences in England re-announced by the government on Tuesday is, quite literally, the least it could do. It is good news for the 300,000 homes that will gain better protection. But is not enough to hold back the rising tide of flood risk, driven by climate change, that affects millions more.
Flood defences are expensive, of that there is no doubt. But they represent excellent value for money, typically preventing damage eight to 10 times as much as the initial investment.
Setting out the funding until 2020 is a very good idea, as flooding needs to be planned for and not reacted to, as happened after last winter, the wettest for at least 250 years. But the spending is only held level in real terms to 2020, while the government's own experts say flood risk is rising as global warming provokes more intense rain and fiercer storms and that funding must increase by £20m each year in real terms.
Nonetheless, the funding package shows the government has at last woken up to the huge and rising damage to people and property wreaked by flooding, or at least opened one eye. On entering government in 2010, ministers slashed flood funding by about a quarter. Floods in 2012 and last winter's devastation saw David Cameron plugging one-off payments into the gaping holes in the defences budget, which the Guardian revealed had affected flooded areas.
After that, Cameron and his ministers repeatedly attempted to claim they were now spending more than ever before, only to be contradicted by authorities like the Office for National Statistics and the National Audit Office. The government's official adviser, the committee on climate change, has also been sharply critical, stating that there was a £500m hole in the government's plan, meaning many tens of thousands of homes would suffer raised flood risk.
The £2.3bn over the next six years means ministers can at last rightly claim they are spending more than before. But only because they themselves cut the previous budget.
Tuesday's announcement, bringing no new money, instead sets out which flood defences are being funded, from the Thames to Tonbridge to Boston. But the details are revealing. Humberside, one of the places most at risk from flooding, gets £80m, a very long way off the £1bn local MPs and councils say is necessary.
An analysis of the new plan to 2020 by Friends of the Earth found that £1.6bn worth of good-value flood defences have been shelved to at least 2021. One such scheme near Dawlish Warren, where the train track collapsed during last winter's storms, would have protected 653 homes. Another worrying detail is that about £500m of the £2.3bn is expected to come from local councils, businesses and people. If they can't find the money - and council flood funding has recently been cut - the promised defences won't get built.
In February, as floods submerged thousands of homes, Cameron said: " Money is no object in this relief effort." The £2.3bn plan to 2020 - effectively treading water as the risk rises - shows the same pledge does not apply to stopping future floods.
LOAD-DATE: December 2, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
175 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 2, 2014 Tuesday 10:19 AM GMT
Lima climate talks: EU and US at odds over legally binding emissions targets;
EU says mandatory carbon emissions cuts should be set for all countries, whereas US wants individual countries to be free to adjust the scale and pace of reductions
BYLINE: Dan Collyns, Lima
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 550 words
The European Union (EU)'s delegation at the climate change conference in Lima has argued that legally binding cuts applying to all countries are necessary and should be adopted by 2015 and entered into force by 2020.
"The EU is of the mind that legally binding mitigation targets are the only way to provide the necessary long-term signal, the necessary confidence to the investors... and provide credibility in the low carbon transition worldwide," said Elina Bardram, head of the EU delegation at the conference, which opened on Monday.
"We're not convinced that an alternative approach could provide the same signals that would be sufficient to deliver the global momentum," Bardram told the Guardian, adding the EU would seek to take a leadership role in negotiations for an agreement which would be "owned by all parties."
It is the first time an EU official has publicly gone on the record on legally binding targets, stating the EU's negotiating position at the Lima conference, which is intended to deliver the first draft of an accord to cut carbon emissions and stave off dangerous climate change. The accord is expected to be signed at a UN conference in Paris next year.
The EU appears to have toughened its stance faced with major nations which claim they could not impose economy wide targets. Bardram hinted that such positions could stall the negotiating process in the lead-up to the Paris meeting.
"We don't want to get to Paris and realise that the targets and the contributions did not add up to what we needed," Bardram told the Guardian, adding that the EU wanted the 2015 agreement to have "legal force through robust rules, procedures and institutions, to ensure long-term certainty and accountability".
The EU's stance is at odds with the US position which favours the 'buffet option', that would contain some legally binding elements but allow countries to determine the scale and pace of their emissions reductions, even if this this calls into question the aim of keeping temperature rises below 2C, the level that countries have agreed to limit warming to.
The US delegation at the conference in Lima were unavailable for comment.
"What the United States is putting on the table is basically the Wild West," Asad Rehman of Friends of the Earth told the Guardian at the conference. "Having a deregulated climate system, having countries just make any pledge they want is a recipe for disaster. What we need is science-based rigorous regulations, it's the only way are going to tackle this climate crisis," he said.
The US pledged to cut its emissions to 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025 in a deal with China last month. The EU in October agreed to binding 40% cuts by 2030 from 1990 levels.
Rehman said both pledges fell short of previous commitments, adding that the EU should be spending its "political capital" to challenge the US's approach on deregulation as well as making sure Canada and Australia's stance of "ignoring climate science doesn't pollute these climate talks".
But the UN's climate chief, Christiana Figueres, said a "gradual approach would be needed to get countries to make their independent nationally determined contributions [countries' pledges on emissions cuts]," adding it would be more of an "art than a science because there are no environmental police".
LOAD-DATE: December 2, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
176 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 2, 2014 Tuesday 10:03 AM GMT
The £2.3bn for flood defences in England is good news but still not enough;
Ministers can at last rightly claim they are spending more than before - but only because they cut the previous budget
BYLINE: Damian Carrington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 513 words
The £2.3bn for flood defences in England re-announced by the government on Tuesday is, quite literally, the least it could do. It is good news for the 300,000 homes that will gain better protection. But is not enough to hold back the rising tide of flood risk, driven by climate change, that affects millions more.
Flood defences are expensive, of that there is no doubt. But they represent excellent value for money, typically preventing damage eight to ten times as much as the initial investment.
Setting out the funding until 2020 is a very good idea, as flooding needs to be planned for and not reacted to, as happened after last winter, the wettest for at least 250 years. But the spending is only held level in real terms to 2020, while the government's own experts say flood risk is rising as global warming provokes more intense rain and fiercer storms and that funding must increase by £20m each year in real terms.
Nonetheless, the funding package shows the government has at last woken up to the huge and rising damage to people and property wreaked by flooding, or at least opened one eye. On entering government in 2010, ministers slashed flood funding by about a quarter. Floods in 2012 and last winter's devastation saw David Cameron plugging one-off payments into the gaping holes in the defences budget, which the Guardian revealed had affected flooded areas.
After that, Cameron and his ministers repeatedly attempted to claim they were now spending more than ever before, only to be contradicted by authorities like the Office for National Statistics and the National Audit Office. The government's official adviser, the Committee on Climate Change, has also been sharply critical, stating that there was a £500m hole in the government's plan, meaning many tens of thousands of homes would suffer raised flood risk.
The £2.3bn over the next six years means ministers can at last rightly claim they are spending more than before. But only because they themselves cut the previous budget.
Tuesday's announcement, bringing no new money, instead sets out which flood defences are being funded, from the Thames to Tonbridge to Boston. But the details are revealing. Humberside, one of the places most at risk from flooding, gets £80m, a very long way off the £1bn local MPs and councils say is necessary.
An analysis of the new plan to 2020 by Friends of the Earth found that £1.6bn worth of good-value flood defences have been shelved to at least 2021. One such scheme near Dawlish Warren, where the train track collapsed during last winter's storms, would have protected 653 homes. Another worrying detail is that about £500m of the £2.3bn is expected to come from local councils, businesses and people. If they can't find the money - and council flood funding has recently been cut - the promised defences won't get built.
In February, as floods submerged thousands of homes, Cameron said: " Money is no object in this relief effort." The £2.3bn plan to 2020 - effectively treading water as the risk rises - shows the same pledge does not apply to stopping future floods.
LOAD-DATE: December 2, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
177 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 2, 2014 Tuesday 9:04 AM GMT
Guardian Big Energy Debate closing reception;
Join us on Wednesday 21 January 2015 for a conversation about the future of energy in the UK. Register your interest today
BYLINE: Guardian staff
SECTION: THE BIG ENERGY DEBATE
LENGTH: 267 words
In January, our year-long project exploring the UK energy crisis and how it can be solved will draw to a close. During the last few months, the Guardian Big Energy Debate has heard from policy makers, academics, consumers, voters, politicians and industry leaders to find how energy affects them. Our closing reception will offer a chance to reflect upon these conversations.
The debate will be chaired by Terry Macalister, the Guardian's energy editor and will feature a keynote from Tim Yeo, chair of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee on the work that the committee has carried out and what their future plans are. This will be followed by a response from the three main political parties, who will also lay out their plans for energy policy ahead of the next general election. The debate will also feature a structured Q&A led by the chair and conclude with questions from the audience.
The evening will include networking and drinks in the library at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.
Details:
Date: Wednesday 21 January 2015 Time: 19.00 - 21.45 Location: Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 1 Birdcage Walk, Westminster, SW1H 9JJ.
Confirmed speakers:
Terry Macalister, energy editor, the Guardian
Tim Yeo MP, chair, energy and climate change select committee
Caroline Flint MP, shadow secretary of state for energy and climate change
This event is now fully booked. For more information about our energy events email ruth.kiveal@theguardian.com
LOAD-DATE: December 2, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
178 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 2, 2014 Tuesday 3:57 AM GMT
Hillary Clinton says fracking carries risks in conservation speech;
Possible presidential candidate draws distinction with Barack Obama, who has trumpeted boom in gas and oil exploration
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg in New York
SECTION: US NEWS
LENGTH: 516 words
Hillary Clinton has offered mild criticism of the fracking boom that has spread across the US under Barack Obama's presidency, drawing another small distinction with his administration.
Clinton, who has yet to declare she is seeking the presidency, kept the bulk of her speech to a League of Conservation Voters dinner in New York resolutely vanilla. But she did express concerns about the environmental costs associated with natural gas and went so far as to suggest there may be places where it was too dangerous to drill at all.
"I know many of us have serious concerns with the risks associated with the rapidly expanding production of natural gas," Clinton told the crowd on Monday night.
"Methane leaks in the production and transportation of natural gas pose a particularly troubling threat so it is crucial we put in place smart regulations and enforce them - including deciding not to drill when the risks to local communities, landscapes and ecosystems are just too high."
Clinton's comments were nowhere near as sharp as her critique of Obama's foreign policy last August, when she bluntly said the administration lacked a coherent strategy.
But they are significant because of Obama's championship of an "all of the above" energy strategy - and because they suggest Clinton is trying to appeal to voters concerned about fracking.
Clinton's speech was otherwise notable for the degree to which she avoid mentioning any controversial topics - much like her address to an energy conference in Nevada during the summer.
She made no mention of the Keystone XL pipeline - the most politically weighted decision awaiting Obama. She made no mention of Arctic drilling, or coal. She even avoided the word "fracking".
But the distinction was evident. Over the years Obama has regularly boasted about the expansion of oil and gas production under his watch, due to fracking, much to the frustration of campaign groups.
The president even touted the expansion of natural gas during his milestone June 2013 speech on climate change.
Natural gas produces far greater greenhouse gas emissions than originally thought because of methane leaks.
Most environmental groups now dismiss the idea that natural gas could serve as a bridge to a clean energy future - as Obama once claimed, and as Clinton repeated on Monday
"If we are smart about this and put in place the right safeguards natural gas can play an important bridge role in the transition to a cleaner energy economy," she said.
Elsewhere Clinton's remarks hewed very closely to Obama's positions on climate and environment.
She called for a strong defence of the new rules cutting carbon pollution from power plants, which form the central pillar of Obama's climate action plan.
Clinton offered praise for Obama's leadership in international climate negotiations, especially last month's agreement between the US and China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
She also borrowed a page from many of Obama's recent speeches, taking a swipe at Republican climate denial. "The science of climate change is unforgiving - no matter what the deniers may say," she said.
LOAD-DATE: December 2, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
179 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 2, 2014 Tuesday 12:15 AM GMT
Australia slashes funding for UN Environment Programme;
Cuts to environmental sustainability agency make country a 'global pariah on the climate front', says Australian Greens party
BYLINE: Shalailah Medhora
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 443 words
Australia will cut its funding to the UN Environment Programme (Unep) by more than 80%, it has been reported.
The federal government was due to give $1.2m to Unep this year, but will now give just $200,000. The ABC reported $4m would be cut over the next four years.
The environment minister, Greg Hunt, said the fund was not a budget priority for the government.
"You've always got to make choices in a difficult budget environment. I would imagine that most Australians would think that putting $12m into coral reef protection within our region, and combating illegal logging of the rainforests of the Asia Pacific would be a pretty good investment, rather than $4m for bureaucratic support within the UN system," Hunt said.
Unep was established in 1972 with the aim of promoting environmental sustainability through global action. It relies on contributions from member countries.
"Close to 90% of the financing of Unep is voluntary and depends on countries' goodwill and also their recognition of Unep," the executive director of the program, Achim Steiner, told the ABC.
"You have to be disappointed [with the funding cut] because clearly the contribution of member states is what enables the Unep to fulfil its mandate and be of service to the global community," Steiner said.
The opposition spokeswoman on foreign affairs, Tanya Plibersek, said: "Tony Abbott tried to keep climate change off the G20 agenda, but he failed. That's because other world leaders know climate change is both an environmental and economic issue."
"The cuts revealed today just reinforce that when it comes to climate change Tony Abbott is out on his own."
Based on its funding commitments for 2012, Australia ranked 13th globally in its support for Unep. The Netherlands contributed the most, with $10m. The US pledged $6.5m and the UK $5.7m.
The foreign minister, Julie Bishop, will soon visit Peru for major international climate talks that have been hailed the best chance in a generation for reaching global climate consensus.
The Greens leader, Christine Milne, labelled the funding cut "a slap in the face". "Australia is a global pariah on the climate front," Milne said on Tuesday. "This sleight of hand is just extraordinary."
She accused the government of using money taken from Unep to fund its commitment to stop illegal logging of rainforests, made at the World Parks Congress in Sydney in November.
"This is really Australia on a world stage behaving badly on the climate. We are so out of step as a nation with the rest of the world. We are not only risking the environment, but Australia's standing in the world is seriously diminished by the Abbott government," Milne said.
LOAD-DATE: December 2, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
180 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 2, 2014 Tuesday
The International New York Times
Adjusting the Tune on Climate Change
BYLINE: By CELESTINE BOHLEN
SECTION: Section ; Column 0; Foreign Desk; LETTER FROM AMERICA; Pg.
LENGTH: 682 words
Cambridge, Mass. -- For a week in November, people across the United States were complaining bitterly about the cold. Record low temperatures were experienced in 43 states; in some northern regions, residents had to dig tunnels to get out of houses engulfed by as much as seven feet of snow.
The freakish cold snap hardly rates in comparison with the devastating floods, fires and droughts that have recently afflicted other parts of the world. But it is another example of how extreme weather has become a global reality, one that is putting the contentious issue of climate change squarely in the middle of everyday conversations.
''Everybody is starting to understand that weather is doing something strange,'' said Marilyn Weiner, director of ''Extreme Realities,'' a documentary produced by her husband, Hal Weiner. The film is making the rounds of American universities and civic groups ahead of its television premiere in December.
The film, narrated by the actor Matt Damon, argues that climate change has geopolitical consequences, which in turn have implications for American national security. Natural catastrophes have stoked wars, political instability, a surge in refugees, even terrorism.
Somber experts -- from the World Bank, the Pentagon and the world of environmental sciences -- tell the camera that the quickening pace of climate change can only be halted by concerted international action.
How many times have we heard that before? Almost every year, the World Bank has put out a devastating report on some aspect of climate change. Last month, in a report entitled ''Turn Down the Heat,'' the World Bank warned that if nothing is done, global temperatures will rise by 4 degrees Celsius, or 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit, by 2060, creating a ''cataclysm'' for poor countries.
The Weiners have been making documentaries about the environment since 1992, with notable success; their films regularly appear on PBS channels and college campuses across the United States. Despite these credentials, for ''Extreme Realities,'' their latest film in a 13-part series, they had to turn to crowdfunding when their usual package of grants fell short.
Getting the message out is never easy; getting people to listen is harder yet, particularly on a subject as elusive as climate science. The trick is to find a narrative compelling enough to reach a wider audience, the Weiners said.
''This time, we have tried very, very hard to find a subject that people on both sides would be interested in,'' Mr. Weiner said. ''That subject is weather; everyone is interested in weather, and everyone is interested in terrorism.''
The film reveals little-known connections between weather and political upheaval -- as, for instance, when a supercharged jet stream split in two in the summer of 2010, causing a heat wave and wildfires in Russia, and massive flooding in Pakistan. The failure of the Russian grain crop contributed to a spike in bread prices in the Middle East, which in turn stoked the Arab Spring uprisings.
In the United States, climate change has become such an overpoliticized issue that it is hard to reach across what has become an ideological divide.
''Those on the right made it a wedge issue, with the result that half of the country still doesn't believe in climate change,'' Mr. Weiner said.
In 2006, the award-winning film ''An Inconvenient Truth'' did capture the public's attention. The problem was that it became associated with its narrator, Al Gore, a prominent Democrat who served as a lightning rod for conservatives who maintain that climate change is a hoax. ''I wish someone else had done it,'' Mr. Weiner said.
This time, the Weiners made a deliberate attempt ''not to preach to the choir,'' as they put it. And in screenings around the country, they have found that ''Extreme Realities'' has indeed resonated more than usual, even among conservative audiences.
''We are getting basically two questions,'' Mr. Weiner said in a telephone interview from their studio in Washington. ''How does extreme weather and national security affect us in our hometown, and what can we do?''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/us/adjusting-the-tune-on-climate-change.html
LOAD-DATE: December 2, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
181 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(T Magazine)
December 2, 2014 Tuesday
Jeanne Gang on Climate Change, Crystals and Her Design Miami Installation
BYLINE: DAN RUBINSTEIN
SECTION: T-MAGAZINE
LENGTH: 1111 words
HIGHLIGHT: The architect and MacArthur “genius” grantee discusses her collaboration with Swarovski, “Thinning Ice.”
Design installations are often steeped in commentary about materiality, politics and the environment, but rarely do they tackle these issues head-on. For its ninth annual collaboration at Design Miami, which is opening this week, Swarovski commissioned the celebrated Chicago-based architect Jeanne Gang to put her own eco-conscious spin on Swarovski crystals. The work, "Thinning Ice," is shaping up to be the series's most stirring creation yet - and perhaps its most poignant. Gang teamed with the noted photographer and environmentalist James Balog, who for three years documented the deterioration of the Stubai glacier in the Austrian Alps, and turned that work into the subject of the installation, combining photography, video and a table and chairs created by the architect to evoke glacier-like forms.
Gang isn't just talking about climate change, she's addressing it; her recently announced Miami project, her first in the city, planned for the Design District, is a sustainability-minded 14-story LEED-Gold certified residential tower scheduled for completion in 2016. Gang's presence will also be felt outside the fair this season: The MacArthur fellow is a consulting architect on a massive outdoor art installation by Paula Crown, fabricated by the studio of Theaster Gates at the University of Chicago.
While she was preparing the final details for "Thinning Ice," T caught up with the designer to talk about her fascination with Swarovski lenses, the role of design in the environment and her hopes for the future of Miami.
Q.
How did this project come about?
A.
We were approached by Swarovski to create an installation for this Design Miami. And it was so interesting to me because I've been using their binoculars for a long time. I'm a big nature lover and bird watcher. I was thrilled to think about how to work with their incredible lenses. This also brought to mind something in nature, which is the formation of crystals - and even gems and minerals in nature - and how they're made, formed and the relationship between them. Ice crystals came to my mind first. I was then immediately drawn to the idea of doing something about climate.
What do you want people to understand about this project?
I'd want people to make the connection between the environment - the idea of what's happening in remote environments, in terms of climate change - and how that connects to Miami as a place. Metaphorically, it's through this Swarovski crystal lens way of seeing. And then, once they're there, it's about being surrounded by this feeling of cool and ice. It should be experiential. It's about this environment that we're creating, and that it's a thoughtful one.
You've done installations and similar projects before. What attracts you to this kind of work?
It's an opportunity to think about concepts that you want to work out that don't have the same constraints as a building or an urban design. You can really get into the materiality and the concepts. It has a beginning, a middle and an end, and they're very close together.
Does that make it more nerve-racking, or less?
It's an energy boost. So within the office, as we work on these kinds of projects, they have an immediacy and a deadline. It helps the creative process, because you know it's going to be built. It's going to be three-dimensional, and it has to be done on time.
And why did you choose to collaborate with Balog?
I'm a big admirer. Swarovski mentioned they already had a relationship there, so it was a great chance to meet James and incorporate his photographs. I was thinking about something really panoramic in scale. The issue became the resolution of the photographs that exist, how to deploy them and also to create a sense of time. Because the ice is actually melting, and you can see some of these glaciers halving off in big enormous chunks the size of buildings. We also incorporated film, sped up so that you can see the changes happening.
What was the creative process like?
It was about looking at a lot of photography of the way that ice actually melts and the types of voids that are created when it does. These pollutants in the air drop onto the glacier, and then the dark color of that particulate matter starts to melt around it. There's a geometry produced from the melting, and that's what shaped the table that's organic in shape with these melt holes within it. We used a lot of the material from Swarovski, including recycled materials. We used some raw material that they had in the beginning of the process, and also just mixed that together with some of the very finely cut crystal finished pieces.
Does the design world have an added responsibility to address things like sustainability?
That's, like, the understatement of the world. Yes. We work with materials and building processes. And in trying to decide what material to use just for the table and the environment we're creating, for example, we went through a lot of options and decided to go with a renewable resource: wood. From my point of view, there has to be change on so many levels. It could be a very small thing, or it could be a very big thing. It's just that everything needs to happen at the same time.
So much has been built in Miami lately. What strikes you about how the city is developing?
There's a high design I.Q. within Miami. It's been exciting to see what having Art Basel and Design Miami has done to transform the sensibilities, so you can really see what was there before, and after, these events started. It's really encouraging that a focus on design and art can have an impact on the built environment. The Design District is really interesting to me because it has very good walkable streets - it's not like starting from scratch. It's just a matter of giving more density to the space, which it can totally handle. That's why I'm excited about building there; it's really a place that people will be able to live in, walk around the streets, shop or get a coffee. It's not just a driving environment.
Are there any designers' works that you look forward to seeing at the fair?
Friends that are designers, yes, but I'm also looking for things myself. I'm a fan of Patricia Urquiola and, of course, the Dutch designers as well.
What do you collect?
I love design objects from many eras - of the 1950s and the midcentury - and I keep a pretty good track of all the designers that I like. I keep an eye out all the time for interesting design that comes up in auction. It's connected to how to make things, and that's one of the things that our office is really good at, which is materials and making. I think design is so close to that.
LOAD-DATE: December 3, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
182 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 1, 2014 Monday 11:51 PM GMT
Nuclear power keeps the corporates in charge. No wonder it's conservatives' preferred solution to climate change;
Tony Abbott says he has 'no theological objection' to nuclear power. That's fair - only blind faith could justify his belief in a power source that's so costly and risky
BYLINE: Tim Hollo
SECTION: COMMENT IS FREE
LENGTH: 945 words
"I have no theological objection" to nuclear power, Tony Abbott said on 1 December, responding to Julie Bishop's relaunch of the right's preferred "solution" to global warming this week.
Abbott's choice of words is fascinating. On the face of it he's suggesting that opposing nuclear power is a faith-based, rather than rational, view. But it is the right's consistent promotion of a technology that has been shown repeatedly to be too slow, too costly and too risky (see, for instance, here and here ) that is underpinned by several right wing articles of faith. It's worth unpacking this credo, because it reveals what's really going on when nuclear power is raised.
The first tenet is a truly theological one, based on a one-eyed reading of the Bible:
"And God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
The US Christian right has long promoted this line from Genesis 1:28 as a Biblical critique of environmentalism. God is telling them, they believe, that we humans are entitled to do whatever we like with the Earth and its resources. There is, of course, a very different Biblical view. Thea Ormerod of the Australian religious response to climate change, among others, talks of the concept of "stewardship", and the responsibility to look after God's creation.
But the "dominion mandate" dovetails so neatly with the modern industrial idea that humanity is separate from and dominant over nature that it has become a powerful aspect of the western materialist creation story.
Nuclear power fits perfectly within a world view that sees splitting the atom as the apogee of human dominance over nature. Given its enormous and persistent waste problem, nuclear power is only acceptable if you believe that it is our right to pollute as we please.
Abbott has explicitly referred to the dominion mandate, most notably in a speech about forestry early this year. Clearly, this theology influences his views on nuclear power.
The second tenet is not canonical, unless you believe Jesus was making an ironic statement when he threw the money-lenders out of the temple. But the increasingly blind faith Abbott and his ilk invest in corporate capitalism has developed a distinctly theological aura.
While it is reasonable to reject climate science, and acceptable to deny declining reef health, it is heresy to question whether handing ever more power to corporate interests will benefit the rest of us.
The privatisation of profit and socialisation of risk inherent in nuclear power only makes economic sense if you believe in the divine right of corporations. With multi-billion dollar cost blowouts in construction and decommissioning, the refusal of private insurance companies to cover risk, and a waste stream that will need to be managed for many times longer than our civilisation has so far existed, it's basically a complex wealth transfer from citizens to corporations.
Nuclear power's great attraction for those who subscribe to this particular faith is that it would maintain the corporate grip on energy infrastructure at a time when diversified and distributed renewable energy systems threaten to democratise energy supply.
Energy regulators the world over are facing increasingly panicked demands from beleaguered fossil fuel companies to staunch the loss of market share as more and more people realise that solar power makes sense. In parts of the USA, there are even proposals to make going off the grid illegal. In this context, nuclear power is a godsend.
The final tenet is the central one of conservative faith - that change is difficult, dangerous and unnecessary. This, as Naomi Klein's latest book, This Changes Everything, points out is what makes climate change so threatening for the right. The clear message of accelerating global warming caused by the fuels that have allowed industrial consumerist capitalism to develop is that we have to change direction.
If you want to deal with climate change - but your world view won't let you contemplate changing the way we use energy, the way we consume, the way our society is structured - nuclear power provides a neat solution. It suggests that we can tackle climate change without really changing anything.
A pity it's not true. Not even the International Energy Agency believes it. But then neither, frankly, do many of its advocates.
Spruiking nuclear power, for many on the right, is not about actually promoting its use. It's far more important as a weapon in the culture war, promoting an idea which buttresses their three key articles of faith: that "man" has dominion over nature; that corporate might makes right; and that change must be avoided.
Opposition to nuclear power is, I would emphasise, a rational position. The evidence is stacked against it. A suite of renewable energy options can be rolled out faster and cheaper and more safely, and they can supply our energy needs - so long as we also change our profligate lifestyles.
But it is also an ethical position, based on a particular world-view; a view that we humans need to stop living as if there is no tomorrow, or there will be no tomorrow; a view that we can and should live as though all of us on this planet, human and non-human, now and in the future, matter.
Support for nuclear power is based on a world-view, but it doesn't have the benefit of also being backed by rational arguments. It is simply a fantasy of the right, a convenient prop they occasionally produce to pretend we can address climate change while changing nothing, and a weapon in their culture war.
LOAD-DATE: December 1, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
183 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 1, 2014 Monday 8:15 PM GMT
After the midterm mauling, is the real President Obama finally standing up?;
Liberal supporters detect fire of 2008 candidate in recent executive actions but with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress has it all come too late?
BYLINE: Dan Roberts in Washington
SECTION: US NEWS
LENGTH: 1494 words
The exhausted-looking president who appeared before reporters after his party lost control of the Senate was determined not to give them a word to replace "shellacking", the infamous soundbite he provided when Democrats were similarly polished off in the House of Representatives during 2010.
"It doesn't make me mopey," Barack Obama insisted at the post-election press conference, in the East Room of the White House four weeks ago. "[This result] energises me because it means that this democracy is working. People in America were restless."
But the presidential energy was hard to see at first. Obama's rumpled body language spoke of 2,114 days in office clearly weighing on frustrated shoulders. For a while, "mopey" appeared to be an entirely appropriate update on "shellacked".
Not only did he seem physically defeated, but the president also spoke of a need for new ideological compromise with the triumphant Republican leadership, joking of working it out over bourbon with the Kentucky senator Mitch McConnell and letting the House speaker, John Boehner, beat him at golf.
However, four weeks on from the drubbing of 4 November, even Obama's critics are instead beginning to wonder whether something snapped that day in the ornate finery of the East Room.
Rather than meeting rivals on their terms or continuing with the same uninspiring stalemate that many supporters blame for their midterm defeat, the president has delighted those on the left of the party by running hard in the opposite direction.
Within a blistering few days, the new Obama infuriated Republicans by granting legal status to 5 million undocumented immigrants; announced a historic deal with China over climate change; and defied powerful corporate interests by ruling that the internet should be kept universally available, under so-called "net neutrality" rules.
From the wreckage of his party's defeat, a president appears to have been reborn. This is a president who bears much more in common with the firebrand elected in 2008 on a message of hope and change than the frustrated figure who had governed ever since.
"Since the election we have started to see the 2008 Obama and it's been really exciting," says Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a leading fundraising group for liberals in the party. "The reason Democrats performed so badly in the midterms is because the party is really lacking a strong brand identity and the leadership is clearly recognising that something needs to change."
Behind the scenes, the president has matched his sudden burst of executive action by dispatching collaborators: killing off a proposed budget deal, for example, that was struck between moderate Democrats and Republicans in Congress and would have restored tax breaks for big business.
Even the toughest challenges have been met with unexpected resolve. Despite aides previously promising there would be no bloodletting after the midterms, Obama sacked his defense secretary, Chuck Hagel, the last Republican in his cabinet, and let it be known he was blaming him for the administration's lacklustre Middle East policy.
More optimistic liberals like Taylor point to other developments on Capitol Hill, such as the promotion of leftwing darling Elizabeth Warren to the Democratic Senate leadership committee and a similar reshuffle in the House minority leadership, as signs that their wing of the party may now be in the ascendancy.
"Beyond Obama, this is the larger rift: there has been a struggle for the heart and soul of the Democratic party between the corporate/Wall Street wing and the Elizabeth Warren/economic populist wing that's been ongoing for years," Taylor says. "What we are seeing now is that [the] middle-of-the-road, corporate approach doesn't work. Voters are repudiating the idea that Democrats should act like Republicans."
Whether this proves a correct reading of the midterm tea leaves remains to be seen, of course. For now, the White House is rather less keen to portray its post-election president as a man reborn.
Asked about the recent flurry of progressive moves on immigration, climate and net neutrality, Obama's aides insist these are simply a continuation of previously stated priorities.
"President Obama has been crystal clear," the deputy press secretary, Jen Friedman, told the Guardian. "He will continue to do everything he can to help strengthen the middle class, create more opportunity and make sure that we're growing faster as an economy and staying competitive."
One reason for the reluctance to publicly burn all bridges with Republicans is a hope that deals can still be reached on issues like the budget, tax reform and war reauthorisation, where both sides need to show voters they can put the dysfunction of recent years behind them.
But there is a marked shift of emphasis from the conciliatory tone on display immediately after the midterm results came in.
"[Obama] will work with Congress where he can to seek common ground and look for areas of overlap, but when Congress refuses to act on policies that are right for the country, the president will act within his legal authority to do what is necessary to serve the American people," added Friedman.
It is also true that several of the biggest announcements of recent days have been a long time in the making. Officials worked for months behind the scenes to craft the Chinese climate change deal. Similarly the executive action on immigration reform was begun over the summer, when Obama publicly tasked his administration with finding ways around a stubborn Congress.
But what is undeniable is that these were moves he felt unable to make before the midterm elections. Nervous Senate Democrats explicitly asked the White House to hold off on relaxing immigration laws, for fear such an action would damage their chances in swing states where Republicans were campaigning heavily against it. Climate change was an equally tricky subject for many Democrats already opposed to White House energy policy over the Keystone oil pipeline.
A more troubling question for the White House is whether it was all worth it. If their caution failed to stop the party losing heavily in the midterms, what was the point in treading so carefully? Could the progressives be right that a bolder president would have galvanised voters more readily? After all, it was what drove many to vote for him in the first place.
"Whatever the reason for all this, the 2008 election was a validation that progressive principles are winning principles and it's very encouraging to see a turn back toward those principles," says Taylor. "The net neutrality policy that he put out is the same one that he campaigned on. Taking bold action on immigration is the reason a lot of people chose to support him in 2008."
Glimpses of the new White House logic could also be seen in the post-election analysis of turnout figures by the press secretary, Josh Earnest, who said the president was likely to be more focused now on appealing to those who hadn't turned out to vote in the midterms than listening to those who had.
It is an incendiary idea among Republicans, and there is no doubt the new political energy in Washington is contagious.
Republicans are fuming at what they regard as unconstitutional abuses of executive authority, some even threatening to dis-invite Obama from next year's State of the Union address to Congress.
More conservative Democrats, such as the New York senator Chuck Schumer, have stepped up their criticism in recent days of Obama's few previous progressive achievements, such as healthcare reform.
Others on the left of the party would prefer to see him concentrate on what they see as the successes of Obamacare and campaign for extensions in Medicare, as well as new reform areas such as student debt relief and increases to the minimum wage.
But the reality is that without either chamber of Congress under Democratic control in his last two "lame duck" years, Obama's best opportunities for radicalism may have been squandered. The battle is more likely to express itself in the race for the party's nomination in 2016.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee is heavily promoting Elizabeth Warren's message as an alternative to the mainstream favourite, Hillary Clinton, and will shortly send its first organiser to New Hampshire, to start pushing candidates to adopt the more aggressive policies it wished Obama had followed through on while he had the chance.
Even if Warren doesn't stand, and she is decidedly lukewarm in public, her fanclub hopes that the last two years of a bolder and more progressive Obama will help pull the party in her direction in time for a fresh assault on Congress and the White House in 2016.
"Whoever runs for the nomination should the embrace the Elizabeth Warren economic agenda," says Taylor. "This is a moment of real crisis; people are very unhappy with the direction the country is going and it requires some audacious thinking."
LOAD-DATE: December 1, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
184 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 1, 2014 Monday 8:00 PM GMT
Climate change drove mastodons to the brink, humans pushed them over;
Radiocarbon dating of fossils suggests the big beasts were driven from Arctic regions of North America by a cooling climate
BYLINE: Stuart Clark
SECTION: SCIENCE
LENGTH: 431 words
Climate change played a pivotal role in the extinction of mastodons in North America, new radiocarbon dating of fossils has revealed - though hunting by people may have been the last straw.
Mastodons are the relatives of modern elephants and were widespread across North America from 125,000 years ago, going extinct around 10,000 years ago. Their disappearance coincides with the arrival of early humans on the continent, and has led to the "overkill" hypothesis that they were hunted to extinction by our species.
The new results, which are published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggest a more nuanced sequence of events.
Grant Zazula, a palaeontologist with the Yukon Palaeontology Program, and his colleagues have dated the collection of 36 fossil teeth and bones, found in Alaska and Yukon. They used a technique that targets the collagen in bone, avoiding contaminants such as varnish and glue that were applied many years ago to strengthen the specimens.
All of the fossils were found to be older than previously thought, with most older than the 50,000-year limit of radiocarbon dating.
The team conclude that mastodons were probably only living in the Arctic and Subarctic for a short time around 125,000 years ago. This was an interglacial period in which Arctic regions of North America were covered in forests and wetlands.
"The residency of mastodons in the north did not last long," said Zazula, "The return to cold, dry glacial conditions along with the advance of continental glaciers around 75,000 years ago effectively wiped out their habitats."
The depleted population of mastodons moved south to escape the advancing ice.
They were just one of dozens of large mammalian species that went extinct around 10,000 years ago. Together they are known as the megafauna and include sabretoothed tigers and giant sloths.
Adrian Lister, research leader in palaeobiology at the Natural History Museum, London, says, "This is a very nice finding. Radiocarbon dating is the best technique we have for this. It seems perfectly reasonable that climate change knocked these populations down in number and to different regions."
From this weakened position, the mastodons had little reserve to resist meat-hungry humans.
"We're not saying that humans were uninvolved in the megafauna's last stand 10,000 years ago, but by that time - whatever the mastodon population was down to - their range had shrunken mostly to the Great Lakes region," said Ross MacPhee, a curator in the Department of Mammalogy at the American Museum of Natural History and a co-author on the paper.
LOAD-DATE: December 1, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
185 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 1, 2014 Monday 6:34 PM GMT
Could the 2C climate target be completely wrong?;
The global warming goal that nearly 200 governments have agreed on should be ditched, say scientists writing in Nature
BYLINE: Adam Vaughan
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1597 words
In a nondescript conference centre five years ago, as temperatures fell to freezing outside in the streets of Copenhagen and protesters gathered, world leaders did something remarkable: they put a limit on how high temperatures should be allowed to rise as man-made global warming takes hold.
It was the first time the nearly 200 countries in the UN climate talks process had put a number on what constituted the limit for dangerous climate change (Germany had done it years before, followed by the EU). And with hindsight, it is one of the signal agreements of a summit that was widely derided as a failure.
Since then, the 2C target - or obligation, as some in climate diplomacy circles refer to it - has been repeated like a mantra, mentioned thousands of times in newspaper articles and most recently uttered aloud repeatedly last week by heads of state in New York for a climate summit organised by Ban Ki-moon.
But two academics in the prestigious journal Nature now argue that the 2C target has outlived its usefulness. They say it should be abandoned and replaced with a series of measures - "vital signs" of the planet's health.
Under the headline, "Ditch the 2C warming goal", they argue the 2C limit is "politically and scientifically... wrong-headed", it is "effectively unachievable" and it has let politicians off the hook, allowing them to "pretend that they are organising for action when, in fact, most have done little."
David G Victor, the University of California professor who co-wrote the comment along with former Nasa associate administrator Charles F Kennel, said he felt compelled to speak out after watching climate diplomacy efforts and working on the latest blockbuster report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"All diplomacy was focused around this goal and yet it struck me as obvious that the emissions trajectories, even if governments made a big effort at controlling emissions, were way off track for 2C." Working on the IPCC report, he told the Guardian, made him realise the 'climate establishment' was "entirely geared to supporting 2C even though nobody had a serious plan for meeting it".
For some in international climate politics, Victor and Kennel's message of reality, as they call it, is tantamount to heresy. And it has provoked a strong reaction.
"The University of California should realise 2C is a fact, not a target," said Lord Deben, former UK environment secretary and now chair of the UK's statutory advisers on climate change. "Go above it [2C] and you say something about the world that is intolerable. 2C is dangerous but at least we have some understanding of what that means. To abandon that would seem a most peculiar thing to do."
The 2C mark is often described as the level beyond which disastrous impacts including flooding and heat-waves - and potentially runaway warming as natural 'feedbacks' kick in - would take place.
Michael Jacobs, a special adviser to Gordon Brown when he attended Copenhagen and now an adviser to the recent New Climate Economy report, says the timing of the intervention is far from helpful. "Although derived from science, 2C is not a scientific target due to the uncertainties in our climate system and our ability to model it. It is a political target, whose adoption in 2009 and 2010 indicated a political commitment to limiting climate change as far as possible.
"15 months out from the Paris conference and a week after a successful summit put climate change back on the international agenda is completely the wrong time to consider abandoning that commitment."
Tom Burke, director of the NGO E3g and a former Rio Tinto executive and UK government adviser, is scathing. "Fundamentally he's [Victor] missed the point. Since they took the Copenhagen accord into the framework at the UNFCCC [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the aegis under which international climate talks take place], 2C is an obligation. It's not a target. They [governments] have defined the boundary of dangerous climate change, therefore countries are obliged to work in order to stay within that boundary."
But given figures published earlier this month, which showed global carbon dioxide emissions at record levels and on an ever-upward trend that puts the world on course for temperatures well above 2C, do Victor and Kennel not have a point when they argue 2C is effectively unachievable?
As they put it: "To be sure, models show that it is just possible to make deep planet-wide cuts in emissions to meet that goal. But those simulations make heroic assumptions - such as almost widespread global cooperation and widespread availability of technologies..."
"There are lots of people who disagree with the idea it's unachievable," said Burke. "It depends what effort you put in. Could we get to 2C? Would we wreck economies to do it? Certainly not. Could we get the political will to do that? That's the question. But if you say we shouldn't even try then we definitely won't get there."
One senior western veteran of the climate talks says privately that dropping the 2C goal would be a "really dumb thing to do." Politically, they said, "it translates into 'let's not try so hard'."
One big name in climate diplomacy who did applaud the intervention is the UK's former deputy prime minister, John Prescott, one of the architects of the 1997 Kyoto protocol, the first and still the only international agreement on cutting emissions.
"I welcome it, I didn't when I read the bloody title [of the article in Nature]," said Prescott, who believes the current effort to get a legally-binding deal in Paris is misguided and that a focus on domestic climate legislation is more important. "We're very close to the ceiling on 2C... we need to have a much more open debate about climate change."
Several scientists were critical of the idea that the 2C limit should be dropped, but did not dismiss Victor and Kennel's argument entirely.
Prof Rowan Sutton, director of climate research for the National Centre for Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading, said: "I have some sympathy with it. He's right that temperature is an imperfect measure of climate change, there's no doubt about that. The 2C target is somewhat arbitrary, it always was. But I wouldn't go as far as he does to argue it should be ditched."
Instead of focusing on holding the world's average surface temperature to 2C, Victor and Kennel propose instead measuring a suite of "vital signs" that they liken to the health indicators that doctors track. They propose tracking the stress man is putting on the climate system by looking at CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, ocean heat content, and temperatures in the polar regions.
"I do agree with him that it could be useful to supplement temperature with a small number of other measures of how the planet is changing," said Sutton. "Having a long shopping list of other measures wouldn't really help people, but I agree with him that a small number, of two or three of four instead of one, that would help wider understanding of what we're talking about."
Prof Kevin Anderson, deputy director of the Tyndall Centre in Manchester, who thinks it is very likely we will fail to keep temperature rises to 2C but believes it is still possible, said there was "some merit" in a suite of vital signs but rejected the idea that 2C should be dropped.
"2C is the best, or perhaps least worst, proxy for a range of impacts that the international community has repeatedly affirmed as an appropriate threshold between acceptable and dangerous climate change," he said. "The [Nature] paper hints at it being the role of scientists to define dangerous - this is, in my view, a mistake that undermines much of their paper." The level of acceptable danger is not a decision for scientists, he says.
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Angela Merkel's climate adviser and the man often credited as the inventor of the concept of a 2C limit in the 1990s, says that the arguments have been made by the authors before - what's new is the visibility of the journal, Nature, that they are writing in.
"This will create a little storm I guess. Many lobbyists will celebrate tonight because this provocation will of course try to stop the momentum which was building up last week in New York. For the first time since Copenhagen, people feel a new movement emerging towards a meaningful agreement in Paris and such a piece can serve as an excuse for inaction again. It somehow conveys the message the science is unclear. All in all, it's a provocation at a critical point in time," he said.
He insists the target is achievable. "To say 2C is practically impossible is against all the findings of the IPCC, which are that yes it is ambitious to keep warming to 2C, but technically, scientifically, it is feasible."
"I do believe in human progress, in our innovation capacity, yes sir, I'm optimistic," he said. "We are very close to a social tipping point regarding decarbonisation of the economy."
Schellnhuber, who is preparing a full riposte for publication in a journal, is most damning of all on the alternative system that Victor and Kennel propose - the set of climate change vital signs.
"I am communicating to heads of state and you have to keep it neat and simple. It was difficult enough to commuicate a 2C target... but it seems to have sunk in. How should I communicate to policy makers who have an attention span of 10 minutes a set of volatility signals ... this is politically so naive," he says.
"How on Earth do I explain to people they should care about joules of energy in ocean heat?"
LOAD-DATE: December 1, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
186 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 1, 2014 Monday 1:47 PM GMT
Bank of England investigating risk of 'carbon bubble';
Enquiry to assess chances of an economic crash if climate change rules render coal, oil and gas assets worthless
BYLINE: Damian Carrington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 489 words
The Bank of England is to conduct an enquiry into the risk of fossil fuel companies causing a major economic crash if future climate change rules render their coal, oil and gas assets worthless.
The concept of a "carbon bubble" has gained rapid recognition since 2013, and is being taken increasingly seriously by some major financial companies including Citi bank, HSBC and Moody's, but the Bank's enquiry is the most significant endorsement yet from a regulator.
The concern is that if the world's government's meet their agreed target of limiting global warming to 2C by cutting carbon emissions, then about two-thirds of proven coal, oil and gas reserves cannot be burned. With fossil fuel companies being among the largest in the world, sharp losses in their value could prompt a new economic crisis.
Mark Carney, the bank's governor, revealed the enquiry in a letter to the House of Commons environment audit committee (EAC), which is conducting its own enquiry. He said there had been an initial discussion within the bank on "stranded" fossil fuel assets.
"In light of these discussions, we will be deepening and widening our enquiry into the topic," he said, involving the financial policy committee which is tasked with identifying systemic economic risks. Carney had raised the issue at a World Bank seminar in October.
News of the Bank's enquiry comes on the day that global negotiations on climate change action open in Lima, Peru, and as one of Europe's major energy companies E.ON announced it was to hive off its fossil fuel business to focus on renewables and networks. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently warned that the limit of carbon emissions consistent with 2C of warming was approaching and that renewable energy must be at least tripled.
"Policy makers and now central banks are waking up to the fact that much of the world's oil, coal and gas reserves will have to remain in the ground unless carbon capture and storage technologies can be developed more rapidly," said Joan Walley MP, who chairs the EAC. "It's time investors recognised this as well and factored political action on climate change into their decisions on fossil fuel investments," she told the Financial Times.
Anthony Hobley, chief executive of thinktank Carbon Tracker which has been prominent in analysing the carbon bubble, said the bank's latest move could lead to important changes.
"Fossil fuel companies should be disclosing how many carbon emissions are locked up in their reserves," he said. "At the moment there is no consistency in reporting so it's difficult for investors to make informed decisions."
Both ExxonMobil and Shell said earlier in 2014 that they did not believe their fossil fuel reserves would become stranded. In May, Carbon Tracker reported that over $1tn is currently being gambled on high-cost oil projects that will never see a return if the world's governments fulfil their climate change pledges.
LOAD-DATE: December 1, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
187 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 1, 2014 Monday 9:25 AM GMT
COP20 is a forum for regional green policies not just global climate targets;
With Latin America already hit by climate change, talks in Lima are the perfect chance to discuss local green programmes
BYLINE: Julian Hunt in London and Joy Pereira in Kuala Lumpur
SECTION: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS NETWORK
LENGTH: 959 words
The 2014 UN climate conference begins today in Latin America, a region where climate change is already having substantial impacts. The summit in Lima will not just be a chance to agree global climate targets, but will also present the opportunity to discuss regional green policies.
But, as usual, the former will get most prominence. This is not surprising as by the next climate conference in Paris in late 2015, the deadline will be up for the international community to agree a new global treaty based on targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Following the recent US-China announcement to reduce carbon emissions, there seems to be greater encouragement for other nations to present their own specific commitments.
But early indications suggest that at least some major emitting countries - such as Canada and Australia - will not make concrete commitments at Lima or indeed next year, despite universal agreement in Copenhagen in 2009 that policies should be directed towards limiting global average temperature rise by two degrees Celsius.
A climate deal would be more likely if governments based their policies and negotiations on October's IPCC report, which concluded that at present rates of total emissions increase, the two degrees Celsius ambition will be exceeded. This judgement is based on objective review of scientific, technical and societal knowledge about climate change, and has been endorsed by government representatives following consensual UN decision making process.
However, since only English language publications were considered in writing the IPCC report, localised impacts of climate change can only be better understood if there are more local studies included in the future. Particularly pressing is research focusing on community-level inputs needed to identify how irreversible changes in the biosphere are developing. There needs to be much more focus on highly populated coastal and riverine regions where flooding and/or saline penetration of food growing areas will make these places increasingly uninhabitable.
In Latin America, the impacts of climate change in the region vary considerably between mountain communities where snow and glaciers are retreating, and those in the Amazon basin where variations in river flows are disrupting agriculture and wider economies. The health of millions of people migrating into growing urban areas in the region is at risk because of rising temperatures and air pollution, despite the rapid introduction of buses and other means of public transport. Around coastal areas, variations of ocean temperature are disrupting fisheries and wider industries.
Lima will therefore provide a valuable forum for the discussion of regional green policies, and the UN, national agencies, and regional expert networks will explore more effective ways of implementing green growth strategies.
Some middle income countries in Latin America and beyond are fulfilling pledges made in 2009 and have shown that economic growth is compatible with intensity of emissions falling. However, this comes at a cost where finite national resources - such as forestry and hydro power - have to be diverted from sustainable development initiatives.
The importance of Lima as a forum for discussion of green policies in Latin America is also underlined by the fact that net effects of climate change policy in the region are in the balance. On one hand, the promotion of biofuels to replace carbon and the mining of copper (which provides the essential ingredient of electrical networks for distributing low carbon electricity) contribute to the mitigation of emissions. But rainforests continue to be depleted, and the carbon released into the atmosphere due to this constitutes 15% of global emissions?
A key development here is the growth of innovative green programmes by local individuals, communities and businesses in developing regions, including Latin America. Examples of such schemes include efforts to reduce energy consumption by producing more goods locally - carbon emissions from shipping are now 15% of total global emissions and rising. Other programmes are based around creating new materials and efficient and environmentally-secure designs; such as new physico-chemical lighting, and composite bricks and walls to help cope with temperature extremes and frequent flooding.
New agricultural data, two-way mobile communications, and better climate forecasts are also key drivers of these green schemes. Some isolated rural communities in developing countries are consulting advice centres to make better decisions around local planting of crops and dealing with weather extremes. A growing number of villages are integrating biogas generation into wider agriculture improvements.
The value of the climate change summit in Lima will lie as much in discussion of regional green policies as agreeing global climate targets. With Latin America at a potential tipping point on global warming, both elements are vital for the region's future as the count-down to a global agreement begins.
Lord Julian Hunt is visiting professor at Delft University of Technology and Joy Pereira is a professor at the Universiti Kebangsam Malaysia and lead author of the IPCC Working Group 2.
Read more stories like this : · Now climate change is affecting jobs NGOs need to nurture 'green-skills'· Climate change: what is your message for global leaders?· The first climate justice summit: a pie in the face for the north· Advertisement feature: Don't waste this opportunity for climate action
Join our community of development professionals and humanitarians. Follow @GuardianGDP on Twitter.
LOAD-DATE: December 1, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
188 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
December 1, 2014 Monday 12:01 AM GMT
Will Lima climate talks pave way for a binding treaty in Paris in 2015?;
Failure will condemn developing countries to unchecked climate change for another generation, and the poorest countries will be worst hit
BYLINE: John Vidal
SECTION: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT
LENGTH: 993 words
When, on Monday morning in Peru, 4,000 diplomats from the world's 196 countries start their mammoth session to negotiate a new legally-binding global climate deal, they will know they are in the last chance saloon. COP 20 in Lima is the last full meeting before Paris in a year's time, when the deal is due to be signed. If countries cannot bury most of their differences on the major issues by Friday week, then the chances of a meaningful agreement next year are slim.
The result of failure would be that developing countries are condemned to unchecked climate change for another generation, and the UN process which relies on consensus to get results is fatally undermined.
On the surface, all is going to the plan of the rich countries and the big emitters. Presidents Barack Obama and Xi Jinping of China, who between them are responsible for 42% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, have agreed a deal on climate change. The US will cut US emissions to 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025, while China has pledged that emissions will fall after 2030. Europe, meanwhile, has agreed to a binding 40% cut by 2030 from 1990 levels. In addition, rich countries have pledged $9.7bn to the new UN Green Climate Fund (GCF). And it has been agreed that, by March next year, every country in the world will have established plans for reducing or constraining emissions as well as producing detailed plans on how they intend to fund climate adaptation.
In reality, the questions start here.
Will developed countries do more?
Lima is the last chance that developing countries have to push for more action from developed countries in the period 2015-2020. To the despair of the poorest countries, the rich have fought to do little more than the very minimum needed, and hopes are already fading that emissions can be held to a 2C rise, considered by science the minimum to avoid dangerous climate change. The recent US-China pact requires neither superpower to do very much, and has dashed all hopes that Paris 2015 will result in the setting of ambitious targets.
Many rich countries now want to sign up to a weak agreement, one with pledges to achieve the targets but no legally-binding requirement, though the EU says it is arguing for legally-binding mitigation targets. The Umbrella Group of countries, which includes the US, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, Ukraine and Japan, are all pushing this line of minimal legal requirement.
Some of the major emerging economies like Korea, Mexico and Brazil and are now hiding behind the poorer developing countries and are not willing to take on substantial emission reduction targets. Their emissions and economies have grown rapidly, yet they are still crying poor.
Developing countries will press strongly in Lima for solid pre-2020 commitments in accordance with scientific assessments. But if the rich and the big emitters do not move, then the result will be worldwide disappointment and cynicism about the UN process. The worry for developing countries is that the less that rich countries do, the more they themselves will have to take on commitments post-2020.
Who pays?
Developing countries last month publicly welcomed the $9.7bn pledged for the GCF, but were in fact bitterly disappointed that it was so little. The money - no more than City of London financial workers are paid as bonuses each year - is to cover 2015-2020 and is so far from what is considered necessary as to be laughable.
Resentment is guaranteed at Lima. Developing countries will press strongly for assurances that the contributions to the GCF are raised to at least $15bn - the minimum necessary, they say, for making it a credible institution. More importantly, they will also want further commitments that $100bn a year will be raised after 2020. This was pledged in 2010, but so far no mechanism has been agreed on how it can be scaled up.
Developing countries will separately press for compensation for the "loss and damages" caused by climate change. The idea has been strongly resisted by the US and other rich countries, which fear they are laying themselves open to unlimited compensation claims. The US and Europe have fought hard to minimise any substantial action on this agenda, but developing countries are unlikely to give way unless stronger action is promised on reducing emissions and a major worldwide insurance scheme is outlined.
If commitments are made to provide climate finance, poor countries could achieve spectacular success in developing green economies, says Oxfam. National plans drawn up by Ethiopia show how climate finance could allow the country to lift millions of people out of poverty while avoiding annual carbon emissions. Peru argues that it could increase its GDP by nearly 1% more than business as usual while halving its emissions at the same time, and Indonesia could fulfil its plan to cut emissions by 41% in 15 years.
Will a deal be fair?
Developing countries have been consistently outraged that rich countries, which have largely caused climate change, are fighting to do as little as possible. But working out how the historical and future financial burden should fall is politically fraught. Some scientists, backed by countries like China and India, have tried to build an "equity calculator" based on capacity, responsibility and need. Separately, Oxfam has calculated that the US should be responsible for providing 56% of financial flows to shift the world on to a low-carbon path during the first commitment period of the new agreement, with 22% coming from the EU and 10% from Japan. Other climate finance contributors should be Russia, Brazil, Korea and Mexico.
Realistically, the politicians who arrive for the high-level segment of the talks in a week's time will be left to cobble together what they can and the climate talks will lurch forward to Paris. With only a few days' negotiations left, and the gulf between countries so large, the best that can be expected is a weak deal in Paris.
LOAD-DATE: December 1, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
189 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 1, 2014 Monday
Late Edition - Final
Optimism Faces Grave Realities at Climate Talks
BYLINE: By CORAL DAVENPORT
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1263 words
WASHINGTON -- After more than two decades of trying but failing to forge a global pact to halt climate change, United Nations negotiators gathering in South America this week are expressing a new optimism that they may finally achieve the elusive deal.
Even with a deal to stop the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions, scientists warn, the world will become increasingly unpleasant. Without a deal, they say, the world could eventually become uninhabitable for humans.
For the next two weeks, thousands of diplomats from around the globe will gather in Lima, Peru, for a United Nations summit meeting to draft an agreement intended to stop the global rise of planet-warming greenhouse gases.
The meeting comes just weeks after a landmark announcement by President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China committing the world's two largest carbon polluters to cuts in their emissions. United Nations negotiators say they believe that advancement could end a longstanding impasse in the climate talks, spurring other countries to sign similar commitments.
But while scientists and climate-policy experts welcome the new momentum ahead of the Lima talks, they warn that it now may be impossible to prevent the temperature of the planet's atmosphere from rising by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. According to a large body of scientific research, that is the tipping point at which the world will be locked into a near-term future of drought, food and water shortages, melting ice sheets, shrinking glaciers, rising sea levels and widespread flooding -- events that could harm the world's population and economy.
Recent reports show that there may be no way to prevent the planet's temperature from rising, given the current level of greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere and the projected rate of emissions expected to continue before any new deal is carried out.
That fact is driving the urgency of the Lima talks, which are expected to produce a draft document, to be made final over the next year and signed by world leaders in Paris in December 2015.
While a breach of the 3.6 degree threshold appears inevitable, scientists say that United Nations negotiators should not give up on their efforts to cut emissions. At stake now, they say, is the difference between a newly unpleasant world and an uninhabitable one.
''I was encouraged by the U.S.-China agreement,'' said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University and a member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a global body of scientists that produces regular reports on the state of climate science. But he expressed doubts that the threshold rise in global temperature could be prevented.
''What's already baked in are substantial changes to ecosystems, large-scale transformations,'' Mr. Oppenheimer said. He cited losses of coral reef systems and ice sheets, and lowering crop yields.
Still, absent a deal, ''Things could get a lot worse,'' Mr. Oppenheimer added. Beyond the 3.6 degree threshold, he said, the aggregate cost ''to the global economy -- rich countries as well as poor countries -- rises rapidly.''
The objective now, negotiators say, is to stave off atmospheric temperature increases of 4 to 10 degrees by the end of the century; at that point, they say, the planet could become increasingly uninhabitable.
Officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are already reporting that 2014 appears likely to be the warmest year on record.
Since 1992, the United Nations has convened an annual climate change summit meeting aimed at forging a deal to curb greenhouse gases, which are produced chiefly by burning coal for electricity and gasoline for transportation. But previous agreements, such as the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, included no requirements that developing nations, such as India and China, cut their emissions. And until now, the United States has never headed into those summit meetings with a domestic climate change policy in place.
This spring, a report by 13 federal agencies concluded that climate change would harm the American economy by increasing food prices, insurance rates and financial volatility. In China, the central government has sought to quell citizen protests related to coal pollution.
In June, Mr. Obama announced a new Environmental Protection Agency rule forcing major emissions cuts from coal-fired power plants. State Department negotiators took the decision to China, hoping to broker a deal for a similar offer of domestic action. That led to November's joint announcement in Beijing: The United States will cut its emissions up to 28 percent by 2025, while China will decrease its emissions by or before 2030.
''Our sense is that this will resonate in the broader climate community, give momentum to the negotiations and spur countries to come forward with their own targets,'' said Todd Stern, Mr. Obama's lead climate change negotiator. ''The two historic antagonists, the biggest players, announcing they'll work together.''
Other negotiators agree. ''The prospects are so much better than they've ever been,'' said Felipe Calderón, the former president of Mexico and chairman of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, a research organization.
The aim of negotiators in Lima is, for the first time, to produce an agreement in which every nation commits to a domestic plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, along the model of the United States-China agreement. Negotiators expect that by next March, governments will make announcements similar to those made by the United States and China.
The idea is for each country to cut emissions at a level that it can realistically achieve, but in keeping with domestic political and economic constraints. World leaders would sign a deal in Paris next year committing all those nations to their cuts, including a provision that the nations regularly reconvene to further reduce their emissions.
The problem is that climate experts say it almost certainly will not happen fast enough. A November report by the United Nations Environment Program concluded that in order to avoid the 3.6 degree increase, global emissions must peak within the next 10 years, going down to half of current levels by midcentury.
But the deal being drafted in Lima will not even be enacted until 2020. And the structure of the emerging deal -- allowing each country to commit to what it can realistically achieve, given each nation's domestic politics -- means that the initial cuts by countries will not be as stringent as what scientists say is required.
China's plan calls for its emissions to peak in 2030. Government officials in India, the world's third-largest carbon polluter, have said they do not expect to see their emissions decline until at least 2040.
While Mr. Obama has committed to United Nations emissions cuts through 2025, there is no way to know if his successor will continue on that path.
That reality is already setting in among low-lying island nations, like the Marshall Islands, where rising seas are soaking coastal soil, killing crops and contaminating fresh water supplies.
''The groundwater that supports our food crops is becoming inundated with salt,'' said Tony A. deBrum, foreign minister of the Marshall Islands. ''The green is becoming brown.''
Many island nations are looking into buying farmland in other countries to grow food and, eventually, to relocate their populations.
In Lima, those countries are expected to demand that a final deal include aid to help them adapt to the climate impacts that have already arrived.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/world/climate-talks.html
LOAD-DATE: December 1, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Felipe Calderón, the chairman of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate and former president of Mexico. (PHOTOGRAPH BY RICHARD DREW/ASSOCIATED PRESS) (A12)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
190 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 1, 2014 Monday
The International New York Times
Energy Efficiency May Be the Key to Saving Trillions
BYLINE: By BETH GARDINER
SECTION: Section ; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; BUSINESS OF GREEN; Pg.
LENGTH: 1130 words
Compared with eye-catching renewable power technologies like wind turbines and solar panels, energy efficiency is nearly invisible. But advocates say doing more with less power may be an even more critical weapon in the fight against climate change and offers big economic benefits, too.
Worldwide, governments, companies and families could be saving trillions of dollars by improving efficiency with cars that go farther on less fuel and improved appliances, light bulbs and factories, experts say.
''It's logical, because we simply waste so much,'' said Harry Verhaar, head of global and public affairs at Philips Lighting and chairman of the European Alliance to Save Energy. ''Some people call energy efficiency low-hanging fruit. I would even say energy efficiency is fruit lying on the ground. We only need to bend over and pick it up.''
Realizing those energy savings would be a huge boon to the climate, ease illness-causing air pollution, reduce many nations' reliance on fuel imports and increase competitiveness by lowering costs, the advocates say. It creates jobs in fields like upgrading buildings, and is generally cheaper than the alternative of constructing new power plants and buying more energy, they argue.
But increasing efficiency is logistically complicated, requiring many individuals and organizations to take a tremendous number of small steps, and most nations have failed to aggressively pursue the potential savings.
Even Germany, which topped the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy's rankings as the most efficient of the world's 16 biggest economies, scored only 65 of a possible 100 points, noted Rachel Young, the lead author. Denmark and Switzerland, too small to be included in the survey, are doing more, she said.
''Energy efficiency is everywhere and nowhere at the same time,'' said Jonathan Sinton, senior energy specialist at the World Bank. ''Power generation happens in a place, in a piece of equipment that you can see and touch. But energy efficiency happens everyplace energy is, and that pervasiveness makes it really, really hard to deal with.''
Some also argue that making energy cheaper by reducing demand just leads consumers to use more, a phenomenon called the rebound effect. Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, said the effect was real but relatively modest, with about 20 percent of saved energy in developed countries being used as a result.
The countries that have made the most progress on efficiency are those whose governments have prioritized it, Mr. Nadel said. Many are in Europe, where Germany, for example, requires regular efficiency audits of manufacturers and has stringent building codes, Ms. Young said.
Environmentalists, though, are disappointed with an October agreement by European Union leaders to set a non-binding target of increasing the bloc's energy efficiency by at least 27 percent by 2030, as part of a broader climate deal.
Monica Frassoni, president of the European alliance, said that would hardly exceed the rate of efficiency improvements already happening, and stronger government action was needed. ''These things do not fall from the sky,'' she said. ''You need political leadership and you need money.''
China has made major strides in recent years and ranks fourth on the efficiency scorecard.
When Deng Xiaoping set his sights in the early 1980s on quadrupling economic output, China's leaders realized that, without dramatic efficiency improvements, it would depend heavily on imported energy, Mr. Sinton said.
''It really takes persistence, and persistence is what has characterized the Chinese effort,'' he said. ''They began to institutionalize energy efficiency, they allocated money to research and development, they started to set targets.''
While China still has wasteful factories and buildings, it also boasts some of the world's most efficient, he said.
Interest in efficiency spiked worldwide during the oil embargo of the 1970s, but later waned, said Philippe Benoit, head of energy efficiency and environment at the International Energy Agency. Awareness has risen again in recent years because of climbing energy prices, concerns about supply and the threat of climate change, he said.
Efficiency will have to account for 40 percent of the emissions reductions if warming is to be limited to 2 degrees Celsius, as world leaders have pledged, Mr. Benoit said. That will cost $14 trillion between now and 2035, more than $600 billion a year, doubling the current rate of spending on efficiency, the agency estimates.
Even during the 1970s crisis, the United States' focus on efficiency was less intent than many nations', said Mr. Nadel of the American efficiency council.
Even so, America uses half the energy per dollar of gross domestic product that it did in the 1970s and has saved more than $15 trillion since then through rising efficiency, he said. Experts say that the use of more modern cars, appliances and equipment leads to efficiency improvements of more than 1 percent a year in developed countries, even without concerted effort.
President Obama has sought to improve efficiency with measures like higher mileage standards for cars and proposed emissions cuts for power plants.
In Britain, the Carbon Trust has helped dozens of major companies, thousands of small ones and nearly all municipal governments to increase efficiency, said James Wilde, the group's managing director of policy and innovation.
Most companies can cut energy costs by between 10 percent and 20 percent with measures that pay for themselves within three years, he said. Some changes, like resetting heating systems and getting employees to turn off lights, bring big savings almost for free, he said. But, ''It's one of these funny things: If it is so attractive financially, why aren't people doing it?'' he said.
Lack of awareness, inertia and the small percentage of overall costs that energy represents for some businesses are all obstacles, he said.
Commercial lending for building upgrades or appliance purchases is growing, Mr. Benoit said, often through programs that allow borrowers to make repayments through deductions from their energy bills.
In poorer countries, increasing efficiency also makes it easier to provide power to those who lack it. When poor households switch to LED light bulbs, for example, ''you're getting a lot more light and leaving enough electricity to do something else, have a fan, a cell phone charger,'' Mr. Sinton said.
Despite up-front costs, advocates say efficiency measures are a bargain compared with other pieces of the puzzle. ''Energy efficiency is the only energy that you could say is for free, where you get your money back,'' Mr. Verhaar said. ''Because it's energy that you don't use.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/business/energy-environment/energy-efficiency-may-be-the-key-to-saving-trillions.html
LOAD-DATE: December 1, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Special Report
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
191 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
December 1, 2014 Monday
The International New York Times
Testing the Limits of European Ambitions on Emissions
BYLINE: By BETH GARDINER
SECTION: Section ; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; SPECIAL REPORT: BUSINESS OF GREEN; Pg.
LENGTH: 1207 words
The European Union has long been a world leader on climate change, and its new agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2030 keeps it at the forefront of that effort. But experts question whether the plans European leaders have sketched out are strong enough to meet their ambitious goal, and even whether a 40 percent cut is enough to keep the Continent on track toward its longer-term target, an emissions cut of between 80 percent and 95 percent by mid-century.
Even as it presses ahead, Europe knows that it is only one piece of the climate puzzle, its emissions accounting for 13 percent of the world's total. Like the U.S.-China deal announced in Beijing last month, the October agreement among Europe's 28 national leaders was intended to give a push to global climate negotiations, which resume this week in Lima, Peru, and are to culminate in a major summit meeting in Paris next year.
''They're aiming higher than almost anybody else,'' said Gail Whiteman, climate change and sustainability professor at the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, in the Netherlands. But concessions demanded by coal-dependent Poland significantly weakened the deal. ''At some point, it doesn't matter what the politics say, we're going to walk into tipping points,'' where climate changes spin out of control, ''and that's the problem,'' she said.
Jonathan Grant, climate change director at PricewaterhouseCoopers in London, agreed that Europe's commitment was ambitious, compared with those of other regions. But he said that while Europe had reduced its carbon intensity, a measure of how much carbon dioxide is emitted per unit of economic activity, by 2.5 percent in 2013, annual drops of 6 percent will be needed if the world is to have a chance at keeping warming to 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, considered the point at which catastrophic changes kick in.
''You basically need to see a revolution in all sectors of the economy to achieve and sustain that carbon intensity reduction,'' he said. ''Governments are still falling far short of what's really required to achieve the 2 degree goal, including Europe. I don't think there's recognition of the scale of change that's required.''
Europe appears on track to meet its current goal of cutting emissions 20 percent from 1990 levels by 2020. The 2030 agreement was reached after months of wrangling between coal-dependent eastern nations and others, like Germany and Sweden, who wanted a tougher plan.
As it is, the 40 percent target may not be firm. Under pressure from businesses and governments worried about global competitiveness, leaders agreed to reconsider their goal if other nations failed to make strong promises at the December 2015 United Nations climate meeting in Paris.
''There's a deliberate ambiguity'' about what Europe would do in those circumstances, said David Reiner, assistant director of the University of Cambridge's Energy Policy Research Group. ''They're quite vague about it, and it's not entirely clear that if China and the U.S. and everybody else signs up in 2015, does that mean the E.U. might sign up to more than 40 percent? You could read it that way.''
''You could also read it that if we are the only ones, it's not entirely clear we will set a tough, binding 40 percent target,'' he added. ''That to me is one of the big question marks.''
Others welcomed the possible way out. Alexandre Affre, director for industrial affairs at BusinessEurope, a powerful business alliance, said companies worried that they would take a hit if Europe moved alone. ''If Europe remains the only one going so far, so quick,'' he said, ''for us it brings a real question of global level playing field for European industry. Which is why we keep saying this deal makes sense only if there is a meaningful global climate agreement.'' He added: ''If not, we think Europe should think again about this 40 percent and possibly revise down.''
Mr. Grant, of PricewaterhouseCoopers, said that European Union leaders took the economic concerns seriously, and that the 2030 framework was unlikely to have a major effect on competitiveness. Despite its shortcomings, the deal was a real achievement, Ms. Whiteman said. ''Try to get 28 people agreeing on where to go for dinner -- that's just not easy,'' she said.
It was doable in part because climate is a far less polarizing issue in Europe than in America, said Scott Barrett, natural resource economics professor at Columbia University's Earth Institute.
''In terms of the understanding of the problem, the need to act, the faith in multi-lateralism, all of that is much stronger in Europe than the United States,'' he said. ''But the problem is that Europe alone cannot address the issue.''
Hopes of a strong international deal got a lift last month, when President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China announced a landmark emissions agreement. The U.S. promised to emit 26 percent to 28 percent less carbon dioxide in 2025 than in 2005, and China said its emissions would peak by 2030. The American carbon-cutting numbers use a different baseline year than Europe's, so are not directly comparable.
Under Europe's agreement, only the overall target, and not the goals of getting 27 percent of energy from renewable sources or improving efficiency by 27 percent, will be applied to nations individually. That is a shift from its 2020 framework, under which each nation was assigned its own goals in all three areas.
The efficiency target, derided by environmentalists as business as usual, is not binding. The renewable energy target is binding for the continent as a whole, but experts say it is unclear how it will be enforced.
''Every country can do what they want to do, some can be more ambitious than others, some won't do anything,'' said Brigitte Knopf, head of energy strategies research at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, in Germany.
Ms. Knopf said she feared ''that we will have within Europe two different speeds of transformation,'' with eastern countries shouldering much smaller emissions cuts than those in the West.
Others see the deal's structure as a strength, arguing that it makes sense to let each country decide how to achieve its own emissions cuts under a simpler regulatory structure.
Most agree that Europe's carbon-trading market, the Emissions Trading System, will be an essential tool, particularly in the absence of hard renewable targets that drive investment in solar, wind and other clean power sources. In its current form, the trading system is not up to that job, mainly because a glut of pollution permits has kept their price too low to make an impact.
''You really will need an effective and potentially quite significant carbon price'' to reach the 40 percent goal, Mr. Reiner said. Europe, he said, may not realize the difficulty of the task.
''There isn't even an appreciation of just how challenging a 40 percent reduction target is, because 20 percent was so easy,'' with emissions falling since 1990 because of factors including a shift from coal to natural gas in some nations and years of recession. This time, he said, ''it's really going to have to be driven by climate policies, and that is a very different world.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/business/energy-environment/testing-the-limits-of-european-ambitions-on-emissions.html
LOAD-DATE: December 1, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Special Report
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
192 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 30, 2014 Sunday 12:11 PM GMT
Lima climate change talks best chance for a generation, say upbeat diplomats;
Hopes rise for global warming deal after US-China carbon commitments inject much-needed momentum into Peru talks
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 752 words
UN climate negotiations opening in Lima on Monday have the best chance in a generation of striking a deal on global warming, diplomats say.
After a 20-year standoff, diplomats and longtime observers of the talks say there is rising optimism that negotiators will be able to secure a deal that will commit all countries to take action against climate change.
The two weeks of talks in Peru are intended to deliver a draft text to be adopted in Paris next year that will commit countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions without compromising the economic development of poor countries.
Diplomats and observers of the UN climate negotiations said recent actions by the US and China had injected much-needed momentum.
"I have never felt as optimistic as I have now," said Tony de Brum, the foreign minister of the Marshall Islands, which are sinking as sea levels rise in the Pacific. "There is an upbeat feeling on the part of everyone that first of all there is an opportunity here and that secondly, we cannot miss it."
Beyond Lima, there is growing evidence of the dangers of climate change, and of countries' failure to act.
The UN environment programme warned earlier this month that industrialised countries were falling short of the emissions reductions needed to prevent warming of 2C above pre-industrial levels, the goal set by world leaders. Carbon dioxide emissions are expected to reach a record high of 40bn tonnes in 2014. Meanwhile, 2014 is shaping up to be the hottest on record.
Observers, however, said there was fresh optimism surrounding the Lima talks after the US and China declared on 12 November that they would work together to cut carbon pollution.
Under the deal, China committed to cap its output of carbon pollution by 2030 or earlier and to increase its use of zero emission energy to 20% by 2030. The US agreed to reduce its emissions by between 26% and 28% from their 2005 levels by 2025.
The EU, the next biggest polluter after the US and China, earlier pledged to cut emissions by 40% from their 1990 levels by 2030.
Christiana Figueres, the UN's top climate official, said the commitments, which have been made well in advance of a March 2015 deadline, had given the talks a boost.
"It is hugely encouraging that well ahead of next year's first-quarter deadline, countries have already been outlining what they intend to contribute to the Paris agreement. This is also a clear sign that countries are determined to find common ground," she said in a statement.
Todd Stern, the US state department's climate change envoy, said the US-China deal could push other big polluters such as India, Japan, Brazil and Russia to come forward with their own post-2020 targets. That in turn boosted prospects for a good outcome in Paris.
"I think it will spur countries to come forward with their own targets," he said. "Generally if you are holding stock in the Paris negotiations your stock went up."
Andrew Steer, the president of the World Resources Institute, an environmental thinktank in Washington, said the US-China deal had changed the atmosphere surrounding the talks.
"There is in the air a sense of momentum," he said. "You've already got commitments of about half of all the greenhouse gas emissions that need to be reduced."
The deal likely to be done in Paris will likely be a hotchpotch of targets such as those announced by the three top carbon polluters, according to an analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
The test for Lima will be the degree to which negotiators can corral those separate action plans from up to 190 countries into a single agreement.
If the talks are to succeed, they will have to come up with a draft text that outlines the structure of that agreement - how to ensure countries commit to deep enough cuts to limit warming to the 2C goal, and how to verify their actions.
The US is pushing for a deal that would avoid setting emissions reduction targets that are legally binding under international law, because that would set up a clash with congress.
Many developing countries, however, insist on legally binding targets. They also argue that only the industrialised countries should have to cut emissions.
The negotiators will also try to ramp up pledges for the Green Climate Fund, which was set up to help developing countries deal with climate change. So far, the fund has raised $9.7bn (£6.2bn) from 22 countries, just short of its initial $10bn target.
The fund is woefully behind its goal of mobilising $100bn a year in public and private finance by 2020.
LOAD-DATE: November 30, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
193 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 30, 2014 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
As Mexico Addresses Climate Change, Critics Point to Shortcomings
BYLINE: By VICTORIA BURNETT
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 14
LENGTH: 1185 words
EJIDO RANCHO OJO LAGUNA, Mexico -- For six years, while drought ravaged Chihuahua State, Mario Ruiz clung to his small herd of cattle.
The pasture where his cattle graze, about 45 miles north of the city of Chihuahua, turned bare. Many of his cows starved. Others he sold to buy fodder for those worth saving. Of 130 cows, just 30 are left.
Now that the rains have returned, turning the dusty steppe a rich green, farmers like Mr. Ruiz, 41, are struggling to restock their herds and dig themselves out of debt. They fret that the drought, which devastated crops and killed 400,000 head of cattle in Chihuahua State, just south of the United States border, could become a familiar enemy.
''If it rains, we'll survive,'' Mr. Ruiz said. ''But it seems like it rains less and it rains later.''
Faced with the growing threat of extreme weather -- droughts, hurricanes and rising coastal waters -- Mexico has positioned itself as a leader in the fight against climate change. It pledges to curb the rise in emissions significantly by 2020 and to produce one-third of its energy from clean sources by 2024.
Mexico, the world's 13th-biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, has passed a stack of federal and state laws that regulate emissions, promote sustainable forest management and establish funds for renewable energy and energy efficiency. In 2012, it became one of the first countries in the world to pass a climate change law.
But as world leaders meet in Lima, Peru, this week to lay the groundwork for a new agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, some analysts doubt that Mexico can meet its much-lauded targets.
''Mexico put on the climate change T-shirt because it was in vogue,'' said Carlos Tornel, a public policy analyst at the Mexican Center for Environmental Law, known as Cemda, an environmental advocacy and research organization. ''We are the champions of the climate change fight -- the good boy who does his homework -- but the resources dedicated to climate change are few.''
The government introduced a carbon tax in January that levies an average of $3 per ton of carbon, and Mexico's stock exchange started a platform to trade carbon credits last year.
Mexico has also been among the most diligent of developing nations in submitting its inventory of greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations convention, according to Globe International, an organization that promotes sustainable development laws.
But there are no penalties for missing emissions targets, and environmental experts say current initiatives are falling short.
While there is a detailed plan for federal entities to reduce emissions -- aiming to cut 83 million tons of carbon dioxide between 2014 and 2018 -- there is no equivalent, experts say, for reductions by the private sector, or by state and municipal institutions. And a fund established in 2012 to finance climate initiatives was given $78,000 to start, they say, but has yet to receive any other money.
Rodolfo Lacy Tamayo, under secretary for planning and environment policy, said the government would pursue a series of initiatives, including cutting pollutants like methane, shifting from diesel and gasoline to natural gas in cars and public transportation, and developing climate change programs with state governments.
''We set an objective,'' he said, ''and we are getting sectors on board: states, municipalities, the paper industry, the timber industry, the farmers, the auto sector. We are lining up all the policy instruments to meet our objective.''
Experts say those plans should include significantly expanding renewable energy sources. More than 80 percent of current consumption comes from fossil fuels.
But measures passed in August, which opened Mexico's oil and gas reserves to foreign investors, reduce incentives for renewable energy, critics argue.
''There is a very strong perception that oil is part of our culture, and that renewables aren't viable,'' said Miguel Soto, spokesman for Greenpeace Mexico's renewable energy program.
He and other experts blame government inefficiency and the power of entrenched interests for a lack of progress toward the country's lofty climate goals.
''There is no doubt among the ruling class that climate change exists,'' said Mr. Tornel, the analyst. ''But there is a lack of political will, and a lack of institutional coordination at the state and municipal levels to design initiatives and take action.''
Harsh climate is a growing burden. The government estimated that the annual average cost of disasters was $2.1 billion between 2000 and 2013, about three times the annual average registered between 1980 and 1999.
In September, Hurricane Odile hit the western, coastal state of Baja California with 115-mile-an-hour winds and torrential rains, destroying houses and leaving 200,000 people without electricity. In October, flooding and mudslides caused by Tropical Storm Trudy killed six people in Guerrero State, a year after storms caused a landslide in La Pintada, Guerrero, that buried about half the village and killed 71 people.
The drought that devastated northern Mexico in recent years has eased in many areas, but the country has lost about 30 percent of its cattle.
In Chihuahua, where wide fields of corn, alfalfa, oats and beans abut neat orchards of pecan, apple and peach trees, drought and the expansion of farmland have produced a fierce contest for water.
The crisis has led to tension with Texas water officials, who say that Mexico has failed to deliver its quota of water from the Rio Grande under a 1944 treaty with the United States.
Some farmers said drought had been a cyclical problem in the region for centuries, although others said the rains had become shorter and patchier. They say they have to dig deeper to reach water; they blame both a lack of rain and big farms that overuse aquifers.
''They are devastating the local flora and fauna,'' said Enrique Ochoa, who grows alfalfa and grazes sheep and Jersey cows on 125 acres about 30 miles north of the city of Chihuahua.
When his well, dug 150 feet deep in 1970, dried up a few years ago, his beans and sorghum withered and his 500 sheep grew thin. He sold most of the sheep and planted no crops for three years, he said, because he could not water them.
''I lived on beans and dry bread,'' Mr. Ochoa said. With the help of a government grant, he has just dug another well -- 1,000 feet deep.
Mr. Ruiz, who has no permit to dig a well and cannot afford one anyway, said he had little choice but to watch the clouds and pray. He stopped sowing beans and corn on the communal land near his house 15 years ago, he said, because the rains came too late in the season.
He is not sure he will make it if the drought returns next year. He cannot afford to buy new cows, because the price has shot up to about $1,000 a head. He said many of his neighbors had given up and migrated to the United States or to the state capital.
''If you can't sow your land, if you can't keep your cows, what do you do?'' he said. ''You sell up. You migrate to the city.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/world/americas/as-mexico-addresses-climate-change-critics-point-to-shortcomings-.html
LOAD-DATE: February 3, 2015
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: President Ollanta Humala of Peru greeted Christiana Figueres, a United Nations official, on the eve of climate change talks. (PHOTOGRAPH BY AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE -- GETTY IMAGES)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
194 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 30, 2014 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
Hydrogen Cars, Coming Down the Pike
BYLINE: By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
SECTION: Section SR; Column 0; Editorial Desk; EDITORIAL; Pg. 8
LENGTH: 681 words
The once-distant promise of clean, affordable hydrogen-powered cars is starting to become a reality.
Several major automakers, including Toyota, Honda and Hyundai, have started or will soon start selling these cars, which will be more expensive than comparable gasoline models but a lot cheaper than they were just a few years ago.
Executives at Toyota say that the cost of making the critical components of hydrogen vehicles has fallen 95 percent since 2008. That is why the company plans to market its first mass-produced hydrogen car, the Mirai, in the United States next year. Other companies, like General Motors, Ford and Audi, are working on similar cars.
The broad adoption of hydrogen-powered cars, which emit only water and heat, could play an important role, along with electric vehicles, in lowering emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants responsible for climate change. Cars and other modes of transportation account for about 28 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, second only to power plants, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Instead of an engine that burns gasoline, cars like the Mirai have fuel cells that combine hydrogen with oxygen from the air to generate electricity that powers a motor. The hydrogen is stored in tanks that can be filled in a few minutes, just like a conventional gasoline tank. By comparison, a gasoline-electric hybrid car like the Toyota Prius also uses an electric motor and generates electricity in part by burning gasoline. And all-electric vehicles like the Tesla Model S store power in batteries that are usually charged from the electricity grid.
Most hydrogen today is created from natural gas in a process that generates carbon dioxide. But scientists say fuel cells are still good for the environment, because making hydrogen produces far fewer emissions than burning fossil fuels. Hydrogen could be produced more cleanly by using alternative energy sources like solar and wind power to split water into hydrogen and oxygen atoms. And it can be generated from renewable sources like sewage and animal waste.
Auto companies, universities and government labs have been working for decades to make fuel cells cheaper, more reliable and more efficient. They have come a long way. In the early 2000s, hydrogen concept cars cost automakers as much as a million dollars to make. The Mirai will sell for $57,000. Another car already on the market, the fuel-cell version of the Hyundai Tucson, is available on a $499-a-month lease. Auto executives and fuel-cell researchers say they are confident the price of this technology will fall sharply in coming years, just as the cost of hybrid cars fell in the last decade.
But cost isn't the only problem. There are just 13 hydrogen fueling stations in the United States today, according to the Department of Energy. Big investments will be needed, and some are on the drawing board. The state of California, where many of the first fuel-cell cars will be sold, plans to spend up to $200 million to build 100 fueling stations in a decade. Countries like Japan and Germany are also investing in refueling stations. And car companies like Toyota and Honda are providing loans to help their business partners build hydrogen stations.
The development of fuel-cell technology has been helped along by federal and state government support. The Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations invested in hydrogen research to varying degrees. Government agencies should continue to provide support, especially in creating a network of refueling stations. Eventually, as the number of fuel-cell cars on the road increases, gas stations will themselves invest in hydrogen.
Some critics of hydrogen cars say they remain expensive and impractical compared with electric vehicles, which can be plugged into the existing electricity system. But that is shortsighted. The real competition for hydrogen-powered and electric vehicles is the gas guzzler. There is little doubt that the world will need many transformative technologies to deal with climate change.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/opinion/sunday/hydrogen-cars-coming-down-the-pike.html
LOAD-DATE: February 3, 2015
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Editorial
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
195 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 28, 2014 Friday 5:43 PM GMT
The Chinese scientific revolution aims to tackle climate change;
China is becoming the center of some critical advancements to tackle global warming
BYLINE: John Abraham
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 934 words
This article is about the future landscape of science in general, and climate science in particular.
Just a few days ago, the Chinese Academy of Sciences hosted a small workshop which involved scientists from around the world that work on a device called the Expendable Bathythermograph, or XBT for short. The obscurity of the conference speaks volumes; it didn't get much, if any, press attention. This fact tells a lot about the host nation.
XBTs are devices that are used to measure ocean temperatures. They were developed many decades ago to help navies determine the depth of the thermocline. Submarines positioned below the thermocline are more able to avoid detection. The devices are released from the deck of a ship and they fall through the water, recording temperatures along the way. As they fall, they unspool a copper wire which is connected to a data collection device so that temperatures can be recorded.
Each year, hundreds of thousands of these devices are dropped into the world's oceans. A huge database, stretching back to the 1960s is available for climate studies. The problem is that the devices are designed to be, well, expendable and cheap. When their wire spool runs out, the wire breaks, and the torpedo-like device detaches from the ship and sinks to the ocean floor. The expendable nature of the device has forced the cost per device to be low.
As a result, no pressure sensors were installed on the devices so water depth cannot be determined directly. Depth has to be inferred from a correlation of prior experiments. If the correlation is not correct, a scientist will not accurately know the depth of the probe in the water and consequently, will not be able to calculate the energy of the ocean waters. Ocean heating is the hallmark of global warming. If we can't use XBTs to get an accurate sense of ocean heating, we are flying blind.
So, understanding the accuracy of XBT fall rates (the rate that they descend in the water) is one of the most important and difficult issues in all of climate science. Part of the difficulty is that devices have changed as the years have passed (both device size and weight). Also, fall rates depend on the temperature of the water (colder water is more viscous and thereby retards probe motion). In addition, the height from which the devices are launched impacts the speed of their entry into the water, and their subsequent descent. All of this makes for time and spatially varying fall rates - real mess.
Despite this, only a small handful of scientists are actively working to improve XBT accuracy, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences decided to bring them all together. This unique group of individuals met for three days to try to hammer out a "best practices" standard. While we don't know yet what the outcome is from this meeting, we see that China has taken a leading role as a scientific player. Approximately half the attendees were Chinese and travel funding was made available by the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
While in many parts of the world, like Australia and the USA in particular, funding for basic research is decreasing, in China things are different. Funding is increasing in critical scientific areas. Perhaps more importantly, in China, scientists are respected. In my country, as well as in Canada, and Australia, whenever you tell people you are a scientist, you must prepare for a negative reaction.
Perhaps it is because we understand human evolution, the history of the universe, climate change, or the causes and effects of acid rain as just some examples. Understanding basic science is a threat to many people in my country. Just being a scientist means I represent those things that are an anathema. It is a very sad state when the people who are most needed to help us navigate our social problems are dismissed by a sizable population.
This is not the case in China. My Chinese colleagues get support from their government, their media, and the larger society. They don't have to wade through hate mail upon coming to the office in the morning. Mail that can always be identified by its terrible speeling an, punctuation!
Yes, the center of intellectual capacity is clearly shifting toward China. That country has a forward looking view of the future. Not only in clean energy and climate, but in information systems, health care, nanotechnology, and other high-technology areas.
I spoke to Dr. Jiang Zhu, the director of Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. He told me,
Recently the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) rolled out a complete restructuring program in order to improve its management and efficiency of research. For example, CAS will establish 20-30 centers of excellence focused on world-leading basic research. This is an ambitious reform and moves in the right direction to produce more breakthroughs that are changing the world.
I work on clean and renewable energy solutions in the developing world, especially Africa. All the solar and wind products you buy in that continent come from China. This is just one example how vision in China has turned to progress outside of China. China is creating the energy economy of the future. They are also developing a reputation for technical quality and human ingenuity.
From where I stand, the future belongs to China. It will be a challenge for other countries to prioritize as well as China has. They have become the leader in many respects, we (the USA) are the followers. We are watching a Chinese scientific revolution before our very own eyes.
LOAD-DATE: November 28, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
196 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 28, 2014 Friday 7:00 AM GMT
Exxon Mobil should return profits to investors, not build more reserves;
The oil giant should focus on value rather than investing money in expensive projects to build the very fossil fuel reserves that endanger its own - and the planet's - survival
BYLINE: Natasha Lamb
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 789 words
Exxon Mobil has been left pondering an age-old investment question - when to re-invest profits and when to return them to investors - after a shareholder proposal, which asks the company to return capital to shareholders rather than break ground on high-cost high-carbon projects in the face of global climate change, was filed by Arjuna Capital and As You Sow.
The answer boils down to where you can secure the greatest value. If companies invest in new projects for ever-lower returns, those investments are value destroying. At a certain point, companies must face the fact that they are as big as they are going to get they are no longer growth companies, but mature, value companies that pay steady dividends.
There are two physical constraints determining the growth of oil companies - there is only so much easy-access oil and our atmosphere can absorb only so much carbon. The first constraint is hurting business now; industry return on invested capital is at a 40-year low despite a sustained period of high gas prices. Unconventional oil, which is harder to extract, is simply too expensive.
As big oil races to separate sticky oil from sand, and drill to previously unthinkable ocean depths in previously unthinkable layers of the earth's crust, spending has doubled over the last 10 years. But supply has only grown by 3%. Exxon is not immune - it has doubled company investments in new reserves over the last seven years, while reducing capital returned to shareholders by roughly a third.
While the second constraint, global climate change, is hotly contested and politicised, it is actually a simple math and science equation. If we burn too much carbon we will raise global temperatures to unsafe levels. Big oil can heed that logic and wake up to the biggest risk their business faces this century. Or they can put their heads in the sticky tar-like sand and continue to pump money into lobbying efforts trying to convince the public otherwise.
In their response to the latest paper by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Exxon publicly stated their business is not at risk of decreased demandbecause they think it's "highly unlikely" that global governments will adopt severe enough policies to reduce fossil fuel consumption and prevent catastrophic climate change.
But just this month, the USA and China took a step toward meaningful carbon goals. Addressing a recent seminar in London, BP's former chief executive, Lord Brown, said : "The targets agreed by President Obama and President Xi will not be achieved with the policies currently in place... They will therefore require new policies, which could reduce the two countries' cumulative oil demand by more than 17bn barrels of oil over the next 15 years."
This is but the latest writing on the wall. Global governments already agree that we cannot raise global temperatures more than 2C, which means that we can only burn less than one third of existing fossil fuel reserves carried on energy firm's balance sheets.
The problem investors face is that Exxon is both willing and able to spend a lot more on projects that could prove uneconomical. The company has the potential to spend more than $100bn in high-cost high-carbon projects over the next 10 years - projects that could fail to prove fruitful if oil prices stay below $95 a barrel, as they are today.
Building fossil fuel reserves in the face of global climate change is simple folly. We should not be in a rush to find and burn all the carbon we can, regardless of cost and irreversible climate impact. Instead, companies and their investors should focus on value.
Big Oil faces a headwind. They are pushing the limits; there's only so much oil in the ground and there's only so much CO2 we can pump into the air. When Exxon realises that, they can start planning smartly for the future.
Natasha Lamb is the director of equity research and shareholder engagement at Arjuna Capital
Read more stories like this:
Australia divestment war shows investment is now the main climate change battleground
Financial systems must consider extreme weather, or risk condemning millions to die
Brought to you by EY: Building sustainable businesses by mixing profit with purpose
The finance hub is funded by EY. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled 'brought to you by'. Find out more here.
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: November 28, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
197 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 28, 2014 Friday
Late Edition - Final
In Peru, a Fight Over Land Rights
BYLINE: By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; EDITORIAL; Pg. 30
LENGTH: 574 words
In September, four indigenous activists who stood up to unscrupulous loggers in a remote region of Peru's rain forest were slain. The deaths could have easily gone unnoticed. Their village, Saweto, is a seven-day canoe ride from the nearest city. There is minimal government presence in the country's vast rain forest, which is home to more than 300,000 indigenous people.
Peru, which is holding the United Nations climate change conference next month, has made commendable pledges to reduce deforestation. But it must do far more to protect some of its most vulnerable citizens by helping them acquire land titles and regulating the logging industry more tightly. Taking those basic steps would go a long way toward the government's goal of being on the vanguard of fighting climate change and it would preserve the way of life of communities that have been living off the earth for thousands of years.
The country has been one of the deadliest for environmentalists and land rights activists, according to Global Witness, a London-based group that has documented the plight of Peruvian indigenous communities. Since 2002, according to the group, at least 57 Peruvian activists have been killed under suspicious circumstances.
The latest case has generated significant attention in Peru and abroad in part because one of the slain activists, Edwin Chota, the leader of the Ashaninka indigenous community in Saweto, had attained a relatively high profile, having been featured in articles in The Times and National Geographic in 2013.
In 2002, the government awarded logging companies the right to chop trees in much of the country's rain forest. The concessions didn't take into account the livelihood of hundreds of indigenous communities that were never consulted. They lead spartan lives, consuming what they fish, hunt and harvest. More than a decade ago, in an effort to protect their land from loggers, Mr. Chota's community applied for a land title. The request was never acted on. After illegal loggers threatened him, Mr. Chota filed complaints with the police in the nearest city and provided authorities with documentation of illegal logging in his area. The government took no substantive action.
In early September, Mr. Chota and three other activists -- Jorge Ríos Pérez, Leoncio Quincima Meléndez and Francisco Pinedo -- were fatally shot on their way to Brazil for meetings on the threat posed by loggers. The deaths sparked an outcry among Mr. Chota's champions abroad, which later drew attention to the case in Peru.
The authorities detained three men, although relatives of the activists worry that other culprits, and whoever ordered the killings, will escape punishment. Shortly after the murders, government officials promised to grant the community a land title. Those are positive steps, but they are woefully late and hundreds of indigenous communities still lack legal rights to their land.
Diana Ríos, the daughter of Mr. Ríos, traveled to New York earlier this month to receive an award from a foundation run by Alexander Soros, the son of the billionaire financier George Soros. The award paid tribute to her community's resolve. Despite the international attention this has received, many villagers, who took refuge in a nearby city after the killings, are now afraid to go home. Ms. Ríos, though, said she is determined to return and take up her father's fight. ''We're strong,'' she said in an interview. ''It's our land.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/28/opinion/in-peru-a-fight-over-land-rights.html
LOAD-DATE: November 28, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Editorial
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
198 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Sinosphere)
November 28, 2014 Friday
Q. and A.: Ann E. Carlson and Alex Wang on the U.S.-China Climate Accord
BYLINE: EDWARD WONG
SECTION: WORLD; asia
LENGTH: 2286 words
HIGHLIGHT: Alex Wang and Ann E. Carlson, law professors at the University of California, Los Angeles, who study environmental policy and regulations in the United States and China, responded to questions about the United States-China agreement on cutting greenhouse gases.
The biggest commitments to come out of President Obama's recent visit to China involved climate change policy. The leaders of the two nations stood beside each other in Beijing and pledged to curb greenhouse gas emissions, sending the world a powerful message that climate change is important to both men, and that the two countries intend to work together on the issue.
Mr. Obama said the United States would emit 26 percent to 28 percent less carbon dioxide in 2025 than in 2005. President Xi Jinping of China said China would reach a peak in carbon dioxide emissions "around 2030." And by then, he said, 20 percent of China's energy would come from sources other than fossil fuels.
Many experts have analyzedChina's promises, trying to determine their feasibility and whether they represent a sincere effort to combat climate change. Less discussed is the impact of the joint announcement on the politics of climate change in the United States and other countries outside China.
Among those who have written on that topicare Ann E. Carlson and Alex Wang, law professors at the University of California, Los Angeles, who study environmental policy and regulations in the United States and China, the leading emitters of greenhouse gases. Together, they responded to questions about the United States-China agreement:
Q.
What are the most interesting reactions you've seen among United States politicians to the joint announcement on climate change?
A.
Two reactions are most relevant. First is incoming Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell's attempt to denigrate the Chinese commitment. He immediately claimed that China will not have to do anything to cut emissions for 16 years, while the U.S. will face steep cuts in emissions right away. This is a political argument that is clever but disingenuous. Senator McConnell is looking for ways to reclaim an argument opponents of climate regulation have relied on for years: that the U.S. should not cut our carbon emissions as long as the Chinese are refusing to act, because we will be hurt economically.
The U.S.-China agreement severely undercuts that argument. The Chinese can't stop emissions growth immediately without drastic measures like allowing no increases in driving and no new economic growth unless they cut emissions elsewhere. To stop emissions growth without severely curtailing economic growth, the Chinese will have to improve efficiency dramatically and shift their energy sources away from coal to much cleaner fuels. The agreement also commits China to doubling the proportion of energy it obtains from nonfossil sources by 2030. So it's simply false to say that the Chinese won't have to do anything. On the other hand, their commitment - to stop emissions growth by 2030 - is later than the U.S. commitment and expresses an intent to stop growing, not to cut, their emissions. There is certainly an argument for more ambition on both of these points, but Senator McConnell did his best to capitalize on the distinctions between the U.S. and Chinese goals to make them look especially weak.
The second most important reaction comes from Senator Jim Inhofe, the climate-denying senator in line to become chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He has promised to do whatever it takes to prevent President Obama from implementing carbon emissions cuts. The president is using executive authority to cut emissions from power plants, cars and other carbon sources. Without these cuts, the U.S. can't meet the goals it promised in the U.S.-China agreement. Republicans will try to block the Environmental Protection Agency from adopting and implementing the regulations, either by repealing its authority or indirectly through cutting its budget. It will be tough for Republicans to succeed because the president can veto their efforts as long as he can keep Senate Democrats in line. But that won't keep Republicans from trying.
Q.
Have opinions on President Obama's climate commitments fallen mostly along party lines?
A.
Yes, the reactions have been pretty predictable. Republicans in Congress are virtually unified in their opposition to the president's climate commitments. Only a handful acknowledge that humans are contributing to climate change, let alone that we need to address the problem, and climate deniers are particularly prevalent among the Republican leadership. The Democrats are somewhat less uniform. Virtually every Democrat in Congress believes that climate change is real and that emissions from fossil fuels are a primary cause. But Democrats from coal-producing states like West Virginia and Oklahoma are more skeptical of regulations that would reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants. And a number of Democrats support approving the Keystone pipeline, which would bring oil extracted from Canadian tar sands to the Gulf Coast. Although the president hasn't indicated whether he'll approve the pipeline, it's something of a litmus test for progressive climate policy among many environmentalists.
One interesting question will be the role that climate policy plays in the 2016 election. Many Democratic strategists believe that climate policy could be a "wedge" issue that convinces independent voters to support candidates who are serious about addressing climate change. If these strategists are right, the U.S.-China agreement places the Republican Party in a real bind. But Republican strategists believe that they can frame climate policies as anti-jobs, especially in energy-rich states dependent on coal. That's why you see House Speaker John Boehner calling the agreement "job-crushing." If climate change is a significant issue in the 2016 election, whose narrative prevails could really matter in deciding on our next president.
Q.
What kinds of reactions are you seeing to the Chinese pledges?
A.
On the whole, the reaction to the announcement has been very positive. This is the first time that China has officially announced a goal to peak carbon emissions, and the nonfossil energy goal represents a $2 trillion commitment to cleaner energy, according to one estimate. Supporters believe that the announcement is an important long-term signal that China intends to continue to press for economic transformation - shifting away from heavy industry to high-value-added, low-carbon industries and services. This sort of commitment has all sorts of potential follow-on effects. It reduces the risk for investors in clean energy. It empowers Chinese environmental regulators. It may embolden citizens to protest against local polluters who are now acting against central policies. And in the U.S., this pulls the rug out from under those who have relied on China as an excuse for stalling U.S. action on climate change.
The skeptics have raised a few responses. Some suggest that the target requires no effort from China, which we've already discussed. Others have said that this is not a binding agreement and therefore does not require either country to do anything. But, as a high-level expression of political intent, this will influence the direction of economic and environmental reform in China. The U.S. has to rely on political, rather than legal, commitments to reduce carbon emissions, because an international treaty with binding commitments is virtually impossible to achieve. A Republican-led U.S. Senate is unlikely to ratify a global treaty. Others argue that we cannot rely on China to implement its commitments. Implementation remains the most serious challenge, in both countries, but there are good reasons to believe that China is serious about getting its emissions under control and transitioning to cleaner energy.
Q.
On the U.S. side, what role will Congress play in formalizing the U.S. pledges?
A.
Congress is unlikely to play much of a role at all with respect to the U.S. pledge to cut its emissions, except to try to block implementation of the U.S. emissions cuts. The Obama administration has already steered international talks away from a formal multilateral treaty process, because any kind of treaty would require the approval of the U.S. Senate. It's clear that the president couldn't muster the two-thirds majority necessary for ratification.
Instead, countries are entering into negotiations next month in Peru, culminating in Paris in 2015, that are aimed at getting countries to engage in pledges to reduce emissions without a formal treaty. The idea is that countries will commit their political and moral capital in agreeing to cuts and that those commitments are just as likely to be met as formal treaty obligations.
The U.S. has also, however, committed $3 billion to assist developing countries in adapting to climate change, and the president is likely to need congressional approval to meet his pledge. If he does, the going may be tough in Congress, but not impossible. President George W. Bush committed $2 billion in a clean technology fund for developing countries in 2008, and these funds for adaptation are grounded in part in arguments that it is in the U.S.'s self-interest to invest in adaptation to prevent catastrophes that we would spend far more on after the fact. Nevertheless, given the overall mood in Washington, it's easy to imagine Congress using its spending power to try to derail the president's $3 billion climate commitment.
Q.
What do you say to the argument that China has a deep-seated problem with enforcement of environmental regulations, so it's very difficult to tell whether it will lower coal consumption to a point where it will meet the "around 2030" goal?
A.
China's environmental enforcement problems in past decades are well documented. But there are reasons to believe that the push for a cleaner, lower-carbon economy can be achieved. First, current climate and energy policies are actually top-level priorities. In the past, rapid development of heavy industry was the top priority, and the weakness of China's environmental regulation reflected this. These days, Chinese leaders see current environmental goals as deeply intertwined with core priorities of economic transformation, social stability and national strength. So the political will is there in a way it wasn't before. Second, there is tremendous bottom-up pressure from citizens because of China's dramatic air pollution problems. Finally, powerful constituencies, including green businesses, are beginning to develop around the shift to nonfossil energy and clean, emerging industries. These companies will become supporters of the push toward a new approach to energy and economic development.
This all said, implementation will be a continuing challenge. Many of the major Chinese industrial enterprises may not cooperate, seeing this new direction as harmful to their interests And, as in the U.S., bureaucrats and politicians with opposing views will resist these efforts at every turn. Nevertheless, we think it's very possible that the incentives for environmental reform in China are growing to a degree that will overpower the opposition.
Q.
Do you think the U.S.-China announcement will catalyze action among other nations? Should the U.S. be putting greater effort into getting other large emitters of greenhouse gases, for example, India, to make pledges?
A.
The announcement is a tremendous boost to international climate negotiations. The world simply cannot address climate change without serious action from China and the U.S. These two countries make up nearly half of global emissions. The announcement sets an example for other countries, and helps to shift investment patterns, regulatory commitments and other behavioral changes that are essential to climate change action. Most important, though, the announcement suggests how countries can proceed in a world where a traditional legally binding treaty is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Significant progress can be made through engagement with a handful of countries with an outsize impact on climate change - the U.S., China, the E.U., India and a few others. The international negotiations will most likely focus on the creation of a system that facilitates domestic action, fosters a sense of accountability and healthy competition among countries, and supports adaptation in the poorest, most vulnerable nations.
India remains one of the most difficult challenges. Although emissions in China, the U.S. and E.U. still dwarf those in India, India has over a billion people, and almost a third of them live in poverty. India's government has made clear that economic development - modeled after China's economic miracle - is its principal aim, with efforts to address climate change far down its agenda. India also possesses vast coal resources. If India develops and uses those resources without controlling carbon emissions, global efforts to contain temperature increases will fail. The challenge, then, is how to help India pursue economic development using clean energy and improved efficiency.
The promise of the U.S.-China agreement is that it demonstrates that each country's individual circumstances will help dictate its strategy. India, like China, has some of the most polluted cities in the world. Climate change promises to have a disproportionate negative impact on Indian citizens who are vulnerable to floods, drought, excessive temperatures and other potentially catastrophic consequences. Yet India also needs to grow economically. China and the U.S. experience can help demonstrate the kinds of clean energy technology and efficiency measures that might balance India's economic goals with its environmental ones, but the approach to India remains one of the most daunting climate issues we face.
LOAD-DATE: November 28, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
199 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 27, 2014 Thursday 3:20 PM GMT
UN climate change deal must have legally binding targets, says EU;
Time is running out for agreeing legal framework for emissions cuts, EU official warns
BYLINE: Arthur Neslen, Brussels
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 641 words
An international deal on global warming must have legally binding targets, Europe will argue at a UN climate summit in Peru next week.
The Lima conference is intended to deliver the first draft of an accord to cut carbon emissions and stave off dangerous climate change, which is expected to be signed at a UN conference in Paris next year.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, a senior EU official in Brussels said that the bloc had not abandoned its position that any agreement on emissions cuts needed to be mandatory.
"Legally binding mitigation targets are definitely something that the EU is pushing for," the official said. "This is one of our key asks. We're yet to be convinced that you could have a sufficient rules-base and certitude by alternative approaches. But it is no secret that some other countries are in a different place."
"The current agreement prototype includes options within options, and has a broad range of views of what constitutes legal force," the source said. "We need to see Lima bring about more convergence, more focus to the text and allow zooming into the really big political crunch issues, as time is short."
Claims by major countries that they could not impose economy wide targets were "disingenuous" and liable to stall the negotiating process over how commitments should be differentiated between developed and developing countries, the official added.
The comments came as French president François Hollande said on Thursday that the Paris summit had a "duty to succeed." He said: "I have been asked when I became an environmentalist" and the answer was "when I arrived in power."
"Because, at some point you have to leave your mark, and the mark we will leave together is a historic climate agreement..."
The US says it wants to put a 'buffet option' on the table in Lima, building on a New Zealand proposal that would contain some legally binding elements but allow countries to determine the scale and pace of their emissions reductions, even if this calls into question the aim of keeping temperature rises below 2C, the level that countries have agreed to limit warming to.
In Brussels earlier this month, the US special envoy on climate change, Todd Stern told journalists that while negotiations on the issue were ongoing, a 'hybrid approach' to legal enforcement offered the best chance of striking a deal agreeable to all.
"Proposals that would involve, in effect, a kind of designated burden-sharing on how reductions should be split up among countries of the world has extremely little chance of political viability," he said. "Countries are not going to buy into that."
Stern confirmed that a footnote to the US submission at a climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009 offered a 42% CO2 reduction by 2030 - higher than the 30% cut by 2025 announced by president Obama in China this month - but added that an 83% decrease by 2050 remained Washington's objective in both cases.
The EU has gone further, setting out a stall for a legally binding 40% drop in emissions by 2030, but measures this against carbon output in 1990, rather than the US's preferred 2005 baseline.
How to account for emissions commitments and monitor, report and verify (MRV) their implementation has taken on a correspondingly greater import.
"MRV provisions and accounting rules will be a core demand for the new agreement," the EU official said. "Unless you have that, it will be difficult to validate that our partners are delivering on their commitments, so we need to really work with partners to ensure that we can come back on a regular basis and review our aggregated effort."
While accepting that a binding deal could easily become a campaigning issue in the next US elections, the official said that Republicans could be persuaded to accept climate science if shown that a low carbon transition was possible.
LOAD-DATE: November 27, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
200 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 27, 2014 Thursday 2:42 PM GMT
Ageing population will compound deadly effects of heatwaves caused by climate change;
A combination of global warming and population growth means more people will be exposed to extreme weather systems, with an ageing population particularly at risk from heatwaves, says Royal Society
BYLINE: Damian Carrington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 799 words
The double whammy of global warming and a growing, ageing population will mean peoples' exposure to deadly heatwaves will multiply tenfold this century, according to a new report from the Royal Society.
The researchers from the UK's science academy warn the world is not prepared for the extreme weather which is already being exacerbated by climate change today.
The world's population is expected to swell from 7bn today to a peak of 10bn by mid-century, and the new analysis examines for the first time how this boom will affect the number of people hit by extreme weather, if the relentless rise in carbon emissions is not reversed.
The combination of population growth and climate change means the impacts of flooding around the world will be increased fourfold and drought impact will be trebled. The report also warns that failure to prepare for more extreme weather would cause huge economic damage, meaning entire nations having their credit ratings downgraded and major companies going bust.
Heatwaves are the climate impact most exacerbated by population changes, because they are particularly dangerous for people over 65 and the global population is ageing quickly.
The greying populations of UK and western Europe mean the region is particularly affected by this multiplication affect. In 2003, a 20-day heatwave killed 52,000 people across Europe but. Without action on climate change, once-rare heatwaves will happen every other year by 2100.
The US, China and north Africa will also be among those suffering from the magnified impact of heatwaves. The combined climate-population damage from flooding and droughts will be felt heavily in western Europe, while India and sub-Saharan Africa will be struck by all three types of extreme weather.
"Extreme weather has a huge impact on society and globally we are not resilient even now," said Professor Georgina Mace, from University College London and who led the group of 24 physical, social and economic scientists. "This is why we have seen these horrible events [like typhoon Haiyan and hurricane Sandy] in the past few years, with many people affected. If we continue on our current trajectory the problem is likely to get much worse as our climate and population change."
The damages are severe in both harm to people and property, the report stated. Extreme-weather damage cost $1.4 trillion (£0.9 trillion) from 1980-2004, of which only a quarter was insured. People in the poorest nations make up just 11% of those exposed to hazards but suffered over half the deaths from disasters.
Mace said the time to act to increase global resilience to extreme weather was now, as major international efforts to tackle climate change, disaster reduction and sustainable development all have deadlines in 2015.
"The good news is there are some solutions," she said. She contrasted the 900,000 lives lost to floods in Odisha in India in 1999 with the 21 lost on 2013 when floods returned. Planning, defences and early warning systems had all been implemented after 1999.
Rowan Douglas, one of the report team and chair of the research network run by Willis Insurance, said developed countries need to act too. "The UK is comparatively well prepared for extreme weather, but it absolutely cannot afford to be complacent about maintaining that position." Despite the UK government's own scientists concluding that flood risk is rising, flood defence spending since 2010 has been cut.
Douglas said it was also vital that the cost of extreme weather damage is built into the world's economic and financial systems, to ensure that long-term protection measures are seen as good value for money. He said the insurance industry had already been forced to change.
"What was an existential risk to the insurance sector is now, at the least, a material risk for the financial wellbeing of the wider economy," Douglas said. "The credit rating agencies are seriously exploring extending techniques used to stress test insurance companies against extreme weather and disaster risk to corporates and potentially nations. They recognise there is a risk now that needs to be properly managed."
Asked if countries or companies could have their credit ratings downgraded because they were not properly managing the risk of extreme weather to their economies or solvency, Douglas said: "Absolutely yes."
Prof Andrew Watkinson, at the University of East Anglia and not part of the research team, said: "This timely report reminds us that extreme weather events affect us all, that we are not as resilient to current extreme events as we could be, and that the nature of extreme events is likely to change in the future. At a time when deep cuts are being made in public spending it is essential that government does not lose sight of its key role in enabling resilience."
LOAD-DATE: November 27, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
201 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 27, 2014 Thursday 12:40 PM GMT
On 15 September, while President;
When Prince Charles becomes king, will he be able to stop his compulsive 'meddling'? And if he can't, what will it mean for the monarchy and the United Kingdom?
SECTION: UK NEWS
LENGTH: 5131 words
On 15 September, while President Obama was meeting with his advisers in the White House and deciding how to unleash the world's most powerful military machine on the Islamic State in Iraq, his ambassador to Britain, Matthew Barzun, was spending the day in a field in Gloucestershire, learning about nitrogen-fixing plants and the dangers of sub-clinical mastitis in cows' udders. The reason was simple: Barzun was visiting Prince Charles's organic Home Farm. Wearing boxfresh Hunter wellies, Barzun picked his way around some cowpats to take a close look at a field of organic red clover. He snapped a photo on his smartphone.
For the past 34 years, the farm has been one of Charles's chief passions. It has become the agricultural embodiment of his beliefs about everything from the natural world to the globalised economy. On winter weekends, he can be found - wearing his patched-up tweed farm coat - laying some of the farm's hedges to keep alive one of his beloved traditional farming techniques. (Charles is such an enthusiast that he hosted the National Hedgelaying Championships here in 2005.) The farm closely reflects Charles's likes and dislikes. In one field, there is a herd of Ayrshire cattle. Charles bought them after he declared that he didn't want yet more common "black and whites".
That morning, the ambassador was not the only influential figure invited for a private tour of the royal farm. Alongside Barzun was Professor Ian Boyd, the chief scientific adviser at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), George Ferguson, the elected mayor of Bristol, and Sir Alan Parker, the chairman of Brunswick, the public relations company that advises Tesco. They were accompanied by civil servants from Defra and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and shown round by the Prince's friend, Patrick Holden, an organic agriculture campaigner, and Charles's farm manager, David Wilson.
The day was organised by Holden's Sustainable Food Trust, but the talking points faithfully echoed Charles's view that industrialised agriculture is a big, dangerous experiment with our environment and a threat to the livelihoods of small farmers. Here was a branch of Prince Charles's power network in action. Away from the public glare, issues that matter intensely to him were being discussed in front of some of the most powerful people in Britain. In an echo of his famous comment of 1986 that he talks to his plants - he joked more recently he actually "instructs them" - there was even a brief exchange on whether oak trees communicate with their relatives through the soil. Holden and Wilson raised a few eyebrows with some of their scientific claims, not least about the danger of antibiotics in meat. On the whole, though, the guests seemed receptive.
Over the past four decades, Charles has carved out a unique position for himself as an elite activist, tirelessly lobbying and campaigning to promote his concerns. From farming to architecture, medicine to the environment, his opinions, warnings and grumbles are always heard. He spreads his ideas through his writings and speeches, his charities and allies and, behind the scenes, in private meetings and correspondence with government ministers. His interventions matter. Peter Hain, the former cabinet minister who lobbied with Charles for NHS trials of complementary medicine, summed up his influence in this way: "He could get a hearing where all the noble, diligent lobbying of the various different associations in the complementary medicine field found it hard."
Letters, written in black inky scrawl, are a key part of his lobbying arsenal. His carriage on the royal train is fitted with a desk, blotting paper and a stash of red-crested HRH notepaper on which he scrawls his "black spider memos". He writes the memos whenever he can - late at night, after dinner guests have left, even at 35,000ft on the royal jet. "I have travelled with him and within five minutes of takeoff, he is doing his letters," said Patrick Holden. "[At home] he goes back to his desk after dinner. How many of us do that?" Sometimes, the late-night letter writing is so exhausting that the prince, who turned 66 last week, is found asleep at his desk.
It is a habit that has put him in a precarious position. On 24 and 25 November, the supreme court will be asked to decide whether Charles's letters to ministers should remain private. This may be the final chapter of a nine-year legal battle between the Guardian and the government over freedom of information laws. In 2005, this newspaper asked to see letters Charles had written to ministers in 2004 and 2005. The government refused but revealed that Charles had sent 27 letters to several departments over eight months. In October 2012 Dominic Grieve, then attorney general, again vetoed release of the letters, arguing that the public might conclude Charles had been "disagreeing with government policy", which "would be seriously damaging to his role as future monarch because, if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is king".
A former high-ranking government official, who is experienced in handling the prince's interaction with ministers, described the risk to Charles's kingship posed by publication as "quite large". There are, he said, "quite a lot of letters and they say some things that are quite zany".
One letter from February 2002, which was leaked to the Daily Mail, revealed Charles's strident approach. Writing to Lord Irvine, then lord chancellor in the Labour cabinet, he rubbished the Human Rights Act, suggesting that it was "only about the rights of individuals (I am unable to find a list of social responsibilities attached to it) and this betrays a fundamental distortion in social and legal thinking". In another letter to Lord Irvine, written in June 2001, he expressed his worry that the act "will only encourage people to take up causes which will make the pursuit of a sane, civilised and ordered existence ever more difficult", and added that "I, and countless others, dread the very real and growing prospect of an American-style personal injury culture becoming ever more prevalent in this country."
Friends admire him as intelligent and conscientious but, perhaps unfairly, the death of the Queen is a day many dread
Even if the letters remain private, many are concerned at the prospect of Charles continuing his activism as king. His record suggests that he will find it hard to abandon his campaigning approach. Charles has used the phrase "mobilising" to describe his activities; his critics call it "meddling". They view his involvement in political matters as an abuse of the unspoken understanding that the royal family should merely symbolise power, not wield it. Charles has waited longer to succeed than any previous heir to the throne. As his wait reaches its final stages, the question of how he will channel his political instincts when he finally becomes king is becoming a matter of debate in his court, in Whitehall and among his friends. Preparations are being made for a very different monarchy to that of Queen Elizabeth, who has secured acceptance of the constitutional monarchy in part through her strict silence on political affairs. Charles's friends admire him as intelligent, caring and conscientious, but, perhaps unfairly, the death of the Queen is a day many dread.
"A quiet constitutional revolution is afoot," his friend and biographer Jonathan Dimbleby said last year. "I predict that he will go well beyond what any previous constitutional monarch has ever essayed."
* * *
Charles's life, up to now, has been about how to carve meaning from his seven decades of waiting. "The defining question of his life has been, 'What good can I make of this ill-defined role?'" said one well-placed source. But this project has also created a dilemma over how he should reign, once the wait is over.
Charles gained a place at Trinity College Cambridge in 1967 after passing two A-levels (B in History and C in French). He graduated with a 2:2 in archaeology, anthropology and history. By 1970 he had met Camilla Shand (later Parker-Bowles). Over the next decade he had several girlfriends and by the time he became engaged to Lady Diana Spencer in 1981, Camilla had married the cavalry officer, Andrew Parker-Bowles. The royal soap opera soon cranked up into a Hollywood blockbuster: the wedding at St Paul's, the babies, infidelities on both sides, divorce, Diana's shocking death in Paris, national mourning, Elton John at the funeral. The royal family's reputation collapsed under an avalanche of negative press coverage.
I predict that he will go well beyond what any previous constitutional monarch has ever essayed
Jonathan Dimbleby
All this time, Charles had been fashioning a parallel intellectual life, immersing himself in the world of ideas and spirituality. "I was born in 1948, right in the middle of the 20th century, which had dawned amid the gleaming Age of the Machine, the very engine of colossal change in the western world," he wrote in his 2010 treatise Harmony: A New Way of Looking at Our World. "By the mid-1950s, a frenzy of change was sweeping the world in a wave of postwar modernism ... By the 1960s the industrialised countries were well on the way to creating what many imagined would be a limitless Age of Convenience. Even as a teenager I felt deeply disturbed by what seemed to have become a dangerously short-sighted approach." By the 70s, this feeling had hardened, and Charles began to speak out: "I could see very clearly that we were growing numb to the sacred presence that traditional societies feel very deeply."
The ideas Charles set out in Harmony are dizzyingly eclectic, and, at times, verge on a kind of mysticism. He cites the "grammar" of Islamic art "that underpins the whole of life", the "magical" rhythms of gardens and nature, the timelessness of Christian iconography and the symmetry of 16th-century German astronomy, Thomas Aquinas's "eternal law", the Vedic traditions of India, and Chinese Daoism. He is interested by the idea of "a duty to try and achieve an attunement between human nature and the greater scheme of the cosmos".
"He is smarter than you think," said one well-placed source. "He reads widely and deeply all the time at night, when he takes time off, when he travels. It is not so much books. He reads papers and is sent them all the time. If a new paper comes in from the University of Georgia on agriculture in the 21st century he'll read it, understand it and send someone a note about it."
In 1984 Charles launched a lifelong war on modern architecture by publicly criticising proposals for an extension to the National Gallery that he said was "like a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved friend". The plans were dropped. Five years later, he wrote a loftily titled book, A Vision of Britain, in which he explained how the urban reconstruction of the 1960s prompted in him a belief that it was "crazy ... to destroy so much of value and by the dictates of fashion throw the baby out with the bathwater". He quoted GK Chesterton in his call to the quiet majority who, he felt, shared his views: "We are the people of England that never have spoken yet."
From the mid-70s onwards, Charles began setting up charities - not as a patron like his mother, but as president, leading meetings and directing them from St James's Palace under the auspices of his charitable foundation, which he launched in 1979. Promoting his beliefs in the fields of health, work, the environment and architecture, his network of organisations came to handle £100m a year in funds. Friends such as the hedge-fund billionaire, Michael Hintze, donated money and the government provided grants. Charles began appointing experts to advise him, such as the former Friends of the Earth leader, Tony Juniper.
St James's Palace became a kind of grand salon for convening the powerful. Charles's "rainforest summit" in 2009 - where he proposed schemes to limit deforestation and reduce climate change - attracted the then French president Nicolas Sarkozy, then US secretary of state Hillary Clinton and UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon. Charles had established his court as a kind of thinktank, a model that may well follow him to Buckingham Palace. According to a source who has known Charles for many years, the charity network, which employs experts on architecture, regeneration, business and the environment, will be slimmed down but will remain "proactive and entrepreneurial".
Some say Charles's activism reflects not just his personality but the era he was born into. He will be the first British monarch to have gone to school - Gordonstoun in Scotland, which he later described as like "Colditz with kilts". The Queen was brought up in an Edwardian household where the women withdrew after dinner so men could talk among themselves, whereas Prince Charles reached adulthood in the late 1960s, and seized the opportunity provided by his unique role to cultivate relationships with the powerful.
Charles has not spoken publicly about how he might approach kingship, and even privately, aides always imply it is a highly delicate issue because it involves talking about a matter of deepest family sadness - the death of his mother. Yet his desire to think of the long-term consequences of human actions, coupled with the ideas expressed in his writings and many public interventions, offer a clue. In 2010, he told an NBC news crew that he felt "born into this position for a purpose". He explained: "I don't want my grandchildren or yours to come along and say to me, 'Why the hell didn't you come and do something about this?'"
* * *
It sometimes seems that Charles is pushing against the limits of his position, testing what is possible for a constitutional monarch in the 21st century. It is an approach that has alarmed many onlookers. "The main difference [between Charles and his mother] is that the Queen is frightfully discreet about these things and will mention them in private meetings with the prime minister," said a former senior government official. "Prince Charles is much more pushy and writes letters about his views which are on the edge of the mainstream. He pushes them hard and takes a risk. He is much more activist."
Since the beginning of 2012, Prince Charles has held 27 meetings with government ministers. The agendas are kept secret by both the palace and Whitehall, but we know that he has previously lobbied ministers over NHS policy, foxhunting, farming policy, grammar schools and human rights laws. Clarence House says the meetings are essential to the Prince "understanding the workings of government, its departments and its senior members". This knowledge will be necessary, it suggests, when he becomes king.
Over the years, Charles has adopted a number of like-minded politicians as allies. He got to know the former anti-apartheid campaigner, Peter Hain, after he became secretary of state for Wales in 2002. At the time, Hain used to send the prince short briefings twice a year to let him know what was happening in Wales. Later, he began meeting Charles on-on-one at Highgrove, his Gloucestershire mansion, and at his London palace, Clarence House. They discovered a shared enthusiasm for complementary medicine and forged an alliance to introduce it into the NHS. "We just got talking about it," said Hain. "And, as a result, I tried to get the Welsh health minister to run a pilot where GPs could use certain recognised and established complementary therapists, whether osteopaths, chiropractors, nutritionists, homeopaths and acupuncturists." The attempt failed, but in 2007, when Hain was Northern Ireland secretary, he launched a trial, which "absolutely thrilled" the prince.
Prince Charles on his tour of Chester. Photograph: David Levene
Charles took a close interest in Hain's progress. He listened to Hain's interviews on Radio 4's Today programme and gave feedback on his performances. "He wanted to persuade, as I did, the secretary of state for health and colleagues in government to do the same kind of pilot study [on the effectiveness of complementary medicine]," said Hain. "I would speak to colleagues and he would approach it in whatever way he chose. I think it involved letters and meetings. He encouraged me and I encouraged him." During this period, the pair shared a dinner with their wives in the upstairs dining room at Clarence House. Despite the formality of the protocols, Hain said that Charles was "full of humour" and "easy to talk to". Charles sipped a soft drink while the others enjoyed wine from the royal cellar.
Whether it was due to his alliance with Hain or his effort through other channels, the prince's campaign worked. In 2005 his charity, the Foundation for Integrated Health, began receiving £1.1m in Department of Health grants to advise on the regulation of massage, aromatherapy, reflexology and other complementary therapies.
From 1997 to 2003, Michael Meacher, MP for Oldham West and Royton, who was then environment secretary, became another of Charles's cabinet allies. At that time, a debate was raging over whether the UK should allow genetically modified crops to be grown commercially in the UK. In 2008 Charles told the Daily Telegraph that the development of GM crops would be "the biggest disaster, environmentally, of all time". Tony Blair was in favour of GM crops and complained to Peter Mandelson that Charles's lobbying was "unhelpful". (Mandelson later described it as "anti-scientific and irresponsible in the light of food shortages in the developing world".)
Meacher, who was sympathetic to the prince's views, soon received an invitation to Highgrove. "As we went through the Highgrove gardens, I found myself alone with him when we got to a particular place and I think that was probably arranged," Meacher said. "On climate change and on organic farming, we had shared views. We had agreed objectives and we were both going to do what we could to achieve them." At receptions with the prince, Meacher would sometimes "get a message from one of his aides" saying the prince wants to have a word with him. Meacher said he was "obviously pleased" with such invitations. During his time in the cabinet, Charles wrote him eight or nine "encouraging" letters about climate change and the environment.
There is no sign that Charles has let up in recent years. Since the beginning of the year he has held meetings with nine ministers in the UK and Scottish governments including David Cameron, George Osborne and Alex Salmond. In just three days in September he met Liz Truss, the environment secretary, Brandon Lewis, housing minister and John Hayes, transport minister. Then there are the dinners at Highgrove, the prolific letter-writing, and campaigning by the 15 charities of which he is president. It is clear that Charles's "mobilising" machine is running at a high voltage. Will he be willing to step away from the controls when he becomes king? Paul Flynn, a member of the commons political and constitutional reform committee, has predicted that unless he does so, there will be "a big confrontation between the monarchy and parliament".
* * *
On a warm September day, Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall stepped out of a Bentley on to a council estate in Chester, having hopped over from RAF Northholt in a private jet that morning. On the back seats of the car were "his and hers" cushions in case the creamy leather upholstery was insufficiently comfortable. Charles had come to Chester for a day of walkabouts.
Charles at a primary school in Lache, which he last visited in 1972, on the outskirts of Chester. Photograph: David Levene
Within seconds of arriving at his first stop, a primary school in the suburb of Lache, Charles was burbling greetings in a husky baritone to a line of dignitaries who wore pinstripes and fascinators. For a man who is supposed to worry a lot, Charles seemed relaxed - his skin was tanned and his suit immaculate. Somehow alert and detached at once, he skilfully picked people out from the crowd and spent a little time with each of them. He looked for moments of humour and broke into an infectious laugh as often as he could.
Every day, Charles must negotiate some extraordinarily banal conversations, which is inevitable when you initiate small talk with 20 people in 15 minutes, as he did here.
Charles: "What are these bulbs?"
Teacher: "Spring bulbs".
Charles: "Oh, well done."
If he was bored (and he mostly didn't look it), he could be forgiven. A plaque commemorates his last visit to the school. It was 1972. He has been a long time in the same job.
Outside the school gate I asked locals about his impending accession to the throne. Suddenly we were back in the 1990s, the royal family's lowest ebb in recent memory. John Schofield, 74, a retired local government officer was talking to his neighbour Bryan Williams, 47, a gas fitter, before the royal motorcade arrived. Schofield said he liked the family "but I don't think he should be king because of the divorce". Williams agreed. "The crown should go down a generation," he said. "I think Charles is a bit too old and he has been in his mother's wake so long. And a lot of people thought so highly of Diana and her sons have taken on everything she stood for."
A popularity poll in June for ComRes suggested there could be a profound slump in public affection for the monarchy when Charles takes the reins. He scored 43% approval against the Queen's 63%. One former cabinet minister I spoke to agreed with the widespread view that Charles's relationship with Diana was the biggest factor in public antipathy towards him.
"People outside the metropolitan bubble, the people who really care about the monarchy, are still quite upset about what happened," said Catherine Mayer, an editor-at-large of Time Magazine, whose biography of Charles will be published next year. "They are inclined to believe a fiction which sees him as a cynic, an experienced older man who married a much younger bride and then treated her badly."
Even so, Charles strongly believes he has a public mandate to engage with the political side of public life. His allies argue that his right to engage with government is rooted in a profound connection with the British people - not least through hundreds of public engagements each year. He is, they say, "well-placed to relay public opinion [to ministers] on a number of issues".
In 2010 he successfully blocked Richard Rogers's £3bn modernist redevelopment of the Qatar-owned Chelsea Barracks site by complaining to the prime minister of Qatar that it was another "brutalist" development of the kind responsible for "the destruction" of London. At that time, Charles's then private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, said it was his "duty to make sure the views of ordinary people that might not otherwise be heard receive some exposure". Rogers, among others, disagreed. Mr Justice Vos, presiding over a related high court case, criticised Charles's intervention as "unexpected and unwelcome".
But how far should he go in speaking out? On his trip to Canada in May this year, he waded into the Ukraine crisis, telling a 78-year old Jewish woman who had fled the Nazis that Vladimir Putin was "doing just about the same as Hitler". Putin said the statement was unacceptable and "not what kings do". Foreign Office diplomats might have been alarmed, but 51% of British people polled by YouGov said the comments were appropriate and only 36% disapproved.
Many of those who know Charles well believe that, as king, he will not adopt the same discreet style as his mother. As one source put it: "The man the public has seen for the last 40 years is the man the prince is." "He will be true to his beliefs in his contributions," said another source, who has known Prince Charles for many years. "Rather than a complete reinvention to become a monarch in the mould of his mother, the strategy will be to try and continue with his heartfelt interventions, albeit checking each for tone and content to ensure it does not damage the monarchy." Another source spelled out the possible new rules of engagement: "Speeches will have to pass the following test: would it seem odd because the Queen wouldn't have said it - or would it seem dangerous?"
His allies offer assurances that there is no cause for concern. Firstly, they argue that Charles and his officials already have a close working relationship with government and that Charles's team at Clarence House usually shares with ministerial aides any speeches that touch on policy, so that they are ready to iron out problems in advance. Yet it is hard to believe, for instance, that Whitehall cleared Charles's comments about the "tragedy" of the government's slow response, in February, to the floods in southern England.
He will have very firm advice when he comes into office to overcome the habits of a lifetime
What's more, they say, King Charles simply won't have as much time to "mobilise". The monarch's schedule is weighed down by the daily red box of state papers, investitures and formal meetings with incoming and outgoing diplomats and clergy. That, too, sounds a little unrealistic, given the plentiful evidence of the prince's appetite for activism. But one source, who has known him for years, dismissed such concerns: "In private moments, at the end of the day and talking freely, he gets frustrated that people don't think he doesn't understand it is a completely different job being head of state."
"He fundamentally gets the role that the monarch plays in our constitution," one source said. "What politicians are, the monarch is not. Politicians are inherently divisive because they are not standing for the nation. Politicians think in five year cycles, but the monarch thinks long-term."
Meacher said he believes Charles wants to influence politicians when he is king. But, Meacher argued, there should be more transparency, and the public has "a right to know if the king has taken an interest in [an issue] and has written to the relevant minister". Others think Charles must desist altogether. "He will have very firm advice when he comes into office to overcome the habits of a lifetime," said a former top Whitehall official.
* * *
The night before Charles's trip to Chester, four members of Republic, the national campaign for an elected head of state, were plotting the end of the monarchy over carrot cake and tea in a neat suburban house on the outskirts of Altrincham. The area around Manchester and Liverpool, two cities with radical political histories, is a relative stronghold for Republic, but the group still has only 15 regular local activists. Inside the house, flyers and #bornequal badges covered the dining room table, while a banner demanding a republic flopped over a toy. The republicans were preparing to run stalls at Wigan Diggers, a festival celebrating the life of Gerard Winstanley, a Cromwell-era political reformer, and at the Live a Better Life vegan festival, where they planned to focus on the royal family's love of hunting.
Republicanism is still a taboo, the activists said. (In polls over the past decade, support for Britain becoming a republic has remained at only 10 to 20%.) They spoke about embracing their beliefs as if they were coming out of the closet. "I've had feelings along these lines for a long time without knowing where to go with it," said Terry Bates. "And then 30 years later I find out I am not alone in feeling like that." For Bates, the moment of truth came at a packed rugby league stadium in Wigan, when he decided to stay seated as the national anthem was played. "I realised this needed to be my protest in front of 32,000 people in the ground," he said. "Now if I hear it on TV I walk out of the room."
With the Duchess of Cornwall - and Grace the golden eagle outside Chester cathedral. Photograph: David Levene
Charles, said Bates, is a useful "recruiting sergeant" in the republican cause. "Are people going to be singing 'God save our gracious king' with quite as much enthusiasm?" agreed Helen Guest, 36, a former nursing sister. "I don't think so."
But if the middle-aged, beige-clad crowd pressed up against the fence of Chester Cathedral at the royal couple's second event of the day is any indicator, then the answer is yes. Charles and Camilla shook hands, posed for photos and accepted gifts. According to Charles's allies, talk of William and Kate "eclipsing" the prince underestimates his popularity with the baby boomer generation, which remains a key constituency for Charles. In Chester, he seemed to be shoring up support with every handshake.
Inside the cathedral, the strangeness of Prince Charles's life came into focus. Around one corner a choir performed a piece by Charles's favourite composer, CMH Parry. Some modernist choir stalls, installed 15 years ago, caught his disapproving eye. "Doesn't quite go," the prince announced, locking eyes with the senior churchman. "It may be time for a review." Around the next corner were members of the Mercian regiment of soldiers, waiting to shake hands with the prince. Behind them was a group of earnest amateur dramatists, who were poised to enact part of a mystery play. They wore what looked like M&S pashminas as biblical headdresses. Finally, in the cloister, Charles was invited to hold Grace the golden eagle, a magnificent bird who, moments earlier, had evacuated her bowels explosively onto this reporter's notebook.
The day ended with a trip to see a plane wing being assembled at the Airbus factory at Broughton and a reception for the industrial cadets programme, which Charles supports as part of his aim to encourage more young people to take up engineering. Improbably, the meticulously planned cocktail of engagements reflected his interests. Charles had done his bit for the nation's education, youth, faith, heritage, and industry - all in the space of three and a half hours, before his jet roared off into the sky to take him back to London. About an hour's flight - long enough perhaps, for three or four more black spider memos that the rest of us may never see.
Follow the Long Read on Twitter: @gdnlongread
What kind of King will Charles III be? The long read: When Prince Charles becomes king, will he be able to stop his compulsive 'meddling'? And if he can't, what will it mean for the monarchy and the United Kingdom? 35 false The Guardian true http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2014/11/19/1416400893972/Prince-Charles-004.jpg 5083 true 452164206 false 546b7310e4b018fc4f4afbfb 9650798 false Robert Booth 2014-11-20T00:00:00Z 2194794 UK false 2014-11-22T17:30:00Z
LOAD-DATE: November 27, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
202 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 27, 2014 Thursday 12:22 PM GMT
Live chat: how can we maintain food security in an uncertain world?;
As our world faces rising social and environmental challenges, how can leaders improve food security and nutrition? Join our debate on 27 November 2014, 1-3pm GMT Sponsored by GAIN
BYLINE: Charlotte Seager
SECTION: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS NETWORK
LENGTH: 699 words
As global leaders gather this week at the ICN2 international conference on nutrition, our thoughts turn to improving food security and nutrition.
This is an urgent issue: global food demand is set to rise by 50% in 2050, and climate change, international conflict and virus outbreaks are all rising challenges for farming. So, how can we maintain food security and nutrition in an increasingly unstable world?
Air pollution is a major risk to improving global nutrition. Research shows that in the next 10 years climate change will inhibit the growth of field-grown wheat by 10%. Farmers won't be able to adapt to avoid its effects, as this pollution will impact urban and rural farming alike.
Elsewhere, international conflicts are adding to the crisis. Take the recent conflict in South Sudan, which has set the country on course towards a "hunger catastrophe", with almost 4 million people in dire need of food and humanitarian assistance. Likewise, enduring conflict in Somalia has left nearly 3 million people at risk of hunger.
Meanwhile, virus outbreaks pose a minute but equally deadly threat to farming. For example, west Africa's recent Ebola crisis significantly disrupted agricultural and market activities, and threatened to erode food security throughout the region.
So, with these challenges in mind, how can policymakers, NGOs and those working in development integrate food security and nutrition planning throughout the world? And what can world leaders do to help maintain food security in an uncertain world? Join our expert panel on Thursday 27 November, 1-3pm GMT to discuss these questions and more.
The live chat is not video or audio-enabled but will take place in the comments section (below). Get in touch via globaldevpros@theguardian.com or @GuardianGDP on Twitter to recommend someone for our expert panel. Follow the discussion using the hashtag #globaldevlive.
Panel
Dominic Schofield, director, GAIN Canada, and senior technical adviser, policy and programmes. @dschofieldGAIN @GAINalliance
Dominic Schofield's career spans over 20 years in the field of international development. His work in nutrition over more than a decade has focused on addressing malnutrition in developing countries through multi-sector alliances. Prior to joining GAIN, he served as food fortification specialist at Unicef. He also served as partnership and business development manager at the Micronutrient Initiative (MI) and at the international development research centre (IDRC).
Duncan Williamson, food policy manger, WWF UK. @DuncWilliamson @wwf_uk
Williamson oversees WWF UK's food work and leads the WWF network on sustainable diets. He is part if the WWF Network's the steering group on the post 2015 agenda and is on the advisor group for the Food and Climate Research Network (FCRN). Williamson is also one of the founding members of Eating Better and on the management board for the UK food Group.
Dr Dennis Aviles Irahola, Sustainable Agriculture and Gender advisor at Oxfam GB. @oxfamgb
Aviles is an agricultural engineer with more than 15 years of experience mainstreaming gender in rural development and climate change adaptation projects. She joined Oxfam in August this year.
Sue Willsher, advocacy team leader, senior associate research and policy, Tearfund. @suewillsher @Tearfund
Tearfund's current global advocacy focus is about promoting sustainable economic development that is socially and environmentally sound and mobilising the global church for action.
Melinda Fones Sundell, senior advisor, Swedish International Agriculture Network Initiative (SIANI) and business development adviser at Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). @SIANIAgri
Melinda is an agricultural economist with over 30 years' experience in research, teaching and private-sector international consulting.
LOAD-DATE: November 27, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
203 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 27, 2014 Thursday 10:18 AM GMT
Live chat: how can we maintain food security in an uncertain world?;
As our world faces rising social and environmental challenges, how can leaders improve food security and nutrition? Join our debate on 27 November 2014, 1-3pm GMT Sponsored by GAIN
BYLINE: Charlotte Seager
SECTION: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS NETWORK
LENGTH: 645 words
As global leaders gather this week at the ICN2 international conference on nutrition, our thoughts turn to improving food security and nutrition.
This is an urgent issue: global food demand is set to rise by 50% in 2050, and climate change, international conflict and virus outbreaks are all rising challenges for farming. So, how can we maintain food security and nutrition in an increasingly unstable world?
Air pollution is a major risk to improving global nutrition. Research shows that in the next 10 years climate change will inhibit the growth of field-grown wheat by 10%. Farmers won't be able to adapt to avoid its effects, as this pollution will impact urban and rural farming alike.
Elsewhere, international conflicts are adding to the crisis. Take the recent conflict in South Sudan, which has set the country on course towards a "hunger catastrophe", with almost 4 million people in dire need of food and humanitarian assistance. Likewise, enduring conflict in Somalia has left nearly 3 million people at risk of hunger.
Meanwhile, virus outbreaks pose a minute but equally deadly threat to farming. For example, west Africa's recent Ebola crisis significantly disrupted agricultural and market activities, and threatened to erode food security throughout the region.
So, with these challenges in mind, how can policymakers, NGOs and those working in development integrate food security and nutrition planning throughout the world? And what can world leaders do to help maintain food security in an uncertain world? Join our expert panel on Thursday 27 November, 1-3pm GMT to discuss these questions and more.
The live chat is not video or audio-enabled but will take place in the comments section (below). Get in touch via globaldevpros@theguardian.com or @GuardianGDP on Twitter to recommend someone for our expert panel. Follow the discussion using the hashtag #globaldevlive.
Panel
Dominic Schofield, director, GAIN Canada, and senior technical adviser, policy and programmes. Dominic Schofield's career spans over 20 years in the field of international development. His work in nutrition over more than a decade has focused on addressing malnutrition in developing countries through multi-sector alliances. Prior to joining GAIN, he served as food fortification specialist at Unicef. He also served as partnership and business development manager at the Micronutrient Initiative (MI) and at the international development research centre (IDRC).
Duncan Williamson, food policy manger, WWF UK. Williamson oversees WWF UK's food work and leads the WWF network on sustainable diets. He is part if the WWF Network's the steering group on the post 2015 agenda and is on the advisor group for the Food and Climate Research Network (FCRN). Williamson is also one of the founding members of Eating Better and on the management board for the UK food Group.
Dr Dennis Aviles Irahola, Sustainable Agriculture and Gender advisor at Oxfam GB. Aviles is an agricultural engineer with more than 15 years of experience mainstreaming gender in rural development and climate change adaptation projects. She joined Oxfam in August this year.
Sue Willsher, advocacy team leader, senior associate research and policy, Tearfund. Tearfund's current global advocacy focus is about promoting sustainable economic development that is socially and environmentally sound and mobilising the global church for action.
Melinda Fones Sundell, senior advisor, Swedish International Agriculture Network Initiative (SIANI) and business development adviser at Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). Melinda is an agricultural economist with over 30 years' experience in research, teaching and private-sector international consulting.
LOAD-DATE: November 27, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
204 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 27, 2014 Thursday 6:40 AM GMT
Guardian Cities Mumbai: day four;
The Guardian Cities team is in Mumbai this week, exploring every aspect of the city in association with NDTV.com. Follow this blog for the latest stories, films and live tweets from all over the city - and tune in at 1.30pm GMT / 7pm IST for a live-stream of our debate with NDTV on comedy and censorship in IndiaDay one, day two and day three : as they happened
BYLINE: Saptarshi Ray and Francesca Perry in Mumbai
SECTION: CITIES
LENGTH: 964 words
block-time published-time 6.16am GMT
Heavy rains and rising temperatures: how will Mumbai cope? A man buys vegetables on a flooded Mumbai street. Photograph: Arko Datta/Reuters
A combination of expanding populations and climate change is putting increasing environmental pressures on many cities around the world - and Mumbai is no exception. Today we're taking an in-depth look at the environmental challenges in this city, and what can be done to ameliorate conditions or better prepare for the threats of natural disasters.
Shruti Ravandran has written two pieces about the looming threat of two disasters in the city: flooding and extreme heat. Her first article remembers the flood of 2005 which devastated Mumbai, explaining that the likelihood of a similar event occurring again is considerable - and not enough is being done to prepare. Despite the formulation of the Greater Mumbai disaster management action plan, vulnerability to flooding remains because of intense construction on floodplains and coastal areas, as well as plastic garbage clogging storm-water drains and waterways:
Much still remains to be done, but time is running out. Climate scientists predict that chances of a 2005-like flood could more than double in Mumbai by 2080, and the losses could triple. "We need preventive measures, rather than a Disaster Management Cell, when we know [flooding] is an extreme event we're prone to," says Rishi Aggarwal, an environmental activist involved in urban planning and mangrove conservation. "But we have not learned anything in 10 years."
A child somersaults into the Arabian Sea to beat the afternoon heat in Mumbai. Photograph: Sajjad Hussain/AFP/Getty
Looking at the city's rising temperatures, Shruti explains that climate-change exacerbated heat in cities like Mumbai is likely to bring: "an uptick in deaths from cardio-respiratory disease, heat-related illness and death, increased rates of potential transmission of vector-borne diseases like dengue and malaria, and a shrinking in the quantity and quality of available water, further amplifying the burden of disease."
This year, Ahmedabad's municipality implemented a Heat Action Plan : let's hope other cities around India, including Mumbai, get one soon.
Stay tuned for further exploration of Mumbai's environmental issues today, as our roving reporter Chris Michael measures the city's infamous pollution. FP
block-time published-time 5.02am GMT
Spotting leopards in Mumbai
Yesterday, following Elizabeth Soumya's story about Mumbai's urban leopards, our reporter Nick Mead headed out to the city's Sanjay Gandhi national park to see if he could track down one of the remaining big cats. Here's what happened...
I'm in Sanjay Gandhi national park - 100 sq km of tropical forest in the heart of Mumbai, and home to 21+ leopards pic.twitter.com/GAyv1cSSjb
- Nick Mead (@nickvanmead) November 26, 2014
250,000 people live in or on the border of the park, many in illegal settlements. The park wall is on the right pic.twitter.com/hwrVyNrkCT
- Nick Mead (@nickvanmead) November 26, 2014
Human settlements create garbage and attract stray dogs - easy prey for leopards pic.twitter.com/RAAyBrc9W0
- Nick Mead (@nickvanmead) November 26, 2014
Conservationist Krishna Tiwari sets up an infra-red camera trap near a path to an illegal village inside the park pic.twitter.com/7cAPc41ZRg
- Nick Mead (@nickvanmead) November 26, 2014
'When the sun goes down this is leopard territory,' says Tiwari. The big cats visit this path most nights pic.twitter.com/f3JUfmgB2i
- Nick Mead (@nickvanmead) November 26, 2014
Many leopard victims are children crouching in the forest at night to answer a call of nature pic.twitter.com/pSxdHUhcai
- Nick Mead (@nickvanmead) November 26, 2014
Tiwari helps park-dwellers dig latrines and tells children to visit the forest at night with an adult and a torch, and crouch in open space
- Nick Mead (@nickvanmead) November 26, 2014
Unfortunately this is the closest @guardiancities got to spotting an urban leopard... #guardianmumbaipic.twitter.com/JlirkNOk9V
- Nick Mead (@nickvanmead) November 26, 2014
Don't forget we are still hoping to spot either a leopard or Sachin Tendulkar in Mumbai this week - a prize to the first person to take a photo of either. If someone, somehow, gets a photo of the two together, we may just combust.
block-time published-time 4.31am GMT
Night vision, and fishing
Yesterday I spent the day with the Koli fishing community in Chimbai Village, with my final run returning after the live blog had battened down its hatches.
But here's a couple of tweets from last night, for a story to come later this afternoon. SR
Night fishing with Chimbai Village crew, 10km out in Arabian Sea. Story tomorrow @guardiancities#guardianmumbaipic.twitter.com/BDC32MGrcr
- Saptarshi Ray (@Saptarshi_Ray) November 26, 2014
Bally the Fish (named after 90s Brummie Bhangra star Bally Sagoo) went from sea to plate to belly. @guardiancitiespic.twitter.com/1U8JjkwYr1
- Saptarshi Ray (@Saptarshi_Ray) November 26, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.36am GMT
block-time published-time 4.24am GMT
Guardian Cities on NDTV: our debates so far
Watch all the live debates from our series so far.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.34am GMT
block-time published-time 4.02am GMT
Water works and car trouble
Good morning Mumbai, Saptarshi Ray here to welcome you to day four of the special Guardian Cities week in this fine city.
This morning we shall mainly be looking at transport and the environment and how they affect Mumbai - from flooding defences to traffic problems and what can be done to analyse and deal with the issues.
Plus we will have the usual roundup of events and happenings in the city, plus lots of content from our litany of writers and commentators.
LOAD-DATE: November 27, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
205 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 27, 2014 Thursday 6:00 AM GMT
Financial systems must consider extreme weather, or risk condemning millions to die;
A new Royal Society report calls for changes to global financial accounting and regulation to ensure extreme weather risk is correctly accounted for
BYLINE: Jo Confino
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 892 words
It's extraordinary how the financial markets that pride themselves on their data analysis and forecasting have such a blind spot when it comes to the impacts of climate change.
I was reminded of this by a new report released today from the Royal Society, which calls on our global financial systems to start considering the risks posed by extreme weather, or risk condemning millions of people to die.
The failure of financial institutions to focus on the dangers comes despite increasing numbers of businesses and other organisations reporting that their operations are being hit by droughts and flooding.
In fact, the Royal Society points out that between 1980 and 2004 the total cost of extreme weather came to $1.4tn (£8.8bn), of which just one quarter was insured. By the middle of the century, it is estimated that large coastal cities alone could face combined annual losses of $1tn (£6.3bn) as a result of flooding.
The report, Resilience to Extreme Weather, is scathing of business surveys, economic forecasts and country briefings that guide investment decisions and credit ratings, but that focus only on established risks such as the availability of skilled labour, access to export markets, political and economic stability, and financial incentives.
It calls for changes to global financial accounting and regulation to ensure extreme weather risk is correctly accounted for and comes up with suggestions for how to do this. Using the experience gained in the reinsurance industry, it calls on public and private institutions to undergo stress tests, which would include reporting their maximum probable annual losses due to extreme events, against their current assets and operations.
By bringing this information into the public domain and placing a value on resilience, the Royal Society hopes it will incentivise capital owners, ranging from homeowners and multinational corporations to cities and countries, to respond to the dangers.
The report concludes:
Until these risks are accurately evaluated and reported, companies will have limited incentives to reduce them, and valuations and investment decisions will continue to be poorly informed. Although some disaster risk information is already disclosed and used by investors, the data and procedures for making assessments are not standardised, which can limit their usefulness. Ultimately, without financial reform, people's resilience will be undermined in the future.
At the recent climate talks in New York, the UNISDR, part of the UN Secretariat tasked with ensuring disaster risk reduction, convened a coalition of accounting organisations, asset managers, central banks, credit ratings agencies, risk modellers, financial regulators and science leaders in an attempt to create what it calls resilience accounting.
The Royal Society believes a common set of measures and indicators could be relatively easily achieved within the next five years, at a very low cost relative to the costs inflicted by extreme weather.
Rowan Douglas, a member of the report's working group and chair of the Willis Research Network, said:
If two otherwise identical international companies have different resilience to extreme weather risks, then one should have a proportionately lower share price or valuation to reflect this higher financial risk. As the frequency and severity of extreme events is increasing, there is increasing exposure of assets to risk. This brings an ever larger disconnect between material risk and asset valuation. Unless financial reforms are made to correct this, we will condemn ourselves to building vulnerable cities in the coming decades at the cost of millions of lost lives and livelihoods and billions of lost dollars, often across regions and communities that can least afford these catastrophic setbacks.
The fact that the financial markets have until now put their collective heads in the sand should come as no surprise. Actuarial professionals, whose very job it is to look after risk management in the financial sector and beyond, have continued to ignore climate change.
I reported on this failure last year when the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries produced a report which showed that global warming and its associated challenges could wipe out the entire defined benefits pensions industry within 30 years if we don't rapidly change course.
The Resource Constraints research report, published by the Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University, concluded:
The more extreme scenarios modelled represent financial disaster; the assets of pension schemes will effectively be wiped out and pensions will be reduced to negligible levels. Currently, actuarial models are effectively discounting to zero the probability of economic growth being limited by resource constraints. If resource constraints are significant, this means that current models will persistently understate the value of liabilities.
Read more stories like this:
10 things you need to know about social and environmental investing
Global investment community can't afford to ignore sustainability
Brought to you by EY: The digital banking promise
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: November 27, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
206 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 27, 2014 Thursday 12:01 AM GMT
Ageing population will compound deadly effects of heatwaves caused by climate change;
A combination of global warming and population growth means more people will be exposed to extreme weather systems, with an ageing population particularly at risk from heatwaves, says Royal Society
BYLINE: Damian Carrington
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 799 words
The double whammy of global warming and a growing, ageing population will mean peoples' exposure to deadly heatwaves will multiply tenfold this century, according to a new report from the Royal Society.
The researchers from the UK's science academy warn the world is not prepared for the extreme weather which is already being exacerbated by climate change today.
The world's population is expected to swell from 7bn today to a peak of 10bn by mid-century, and the new analysis examines for the first time how this boom will affect the number of people hit by extreme weather, if the relentless rise in carbon emissions is not reversed.
The combination of population growth and climate change means the impacts of flooding around the world will be increased fourfold and drought impact will be trebled. The report also warns that failure to prepare for more extreme weather would cause huge economic damage, meaning entire nations having their credit ratings downgraded and major companies going bust.
Heatwaves are the climate impact most exacerbated by population changes, because they are particularly dangerous for people over 65 and the global population is ageing quickly.
The greying populations of UK and western Europe mean the region is particularly affected by this multiplication affect. In 2003, a 20-day heatwave killed 52,000 people across Europe but. Without action on climate change, once-rare heatwaves will happen every other year by 2100.
The US, China and north Africa will also be among those suffering from the magnified impact of heatwaves. The combined climate-population damage from flooding and droughts will be felt heavily in western Europe, while India and sub-Saharan Africa will be struck by all three types of extreme weather.
"Extreme weather has a huge impact on society and globally we are not resilient even now," said Professor Georgina Mace, from University College London and who led the group of 24 physical, social and economic scientists. "This is why we have seen these horrible events [like typhoon Haiyan and hurricane Sandy] in the past few years, with many people affected. If we continue on our current trajectory the problem is likely to get much worse as our climate and population change."
The damages are severe in both harm to people and property, the report stated. Extreme-weather damage cost $1.4 trillion (£0.9 trillion) from 1980-2004, of which only a quarter was insured. People in the poorest nations make up just 11% of those exposed to hazards but suffered over half the deaths from disasters.
Mace said the time to act to increase global resilience to extreme weather was now, as major international efforts to tackle climate change, disaster reduction and sustainable development all have deadlines in 2015.
"The good news is there are some solutions," she said. She contrasted the 900,000 lives lost to floods in Odisha in India in 1999 with the 21 lost on 2013 when floods returned. Planning, defences and early warning systems had all been implemented after 1999.
Rowan Douglas, one of the report team and chair of the research network run by Willis Insurance, said developed countries need to act too. "The UK is comparatively well prepared for extreme weather, but it absolutely cannot afford to be complacent about maintaining that position." Despite the UK government's own scientists concluding that flood risk is rising, flood defence spending since 2010 has been cut.
Douglas said it was also vital that the cost of extreme weather damage is built into the world's economic and financial systems, to ensure that long-term protection measures are seen as good value for money. He said the insurance industry had already been forced to change.
"What was an existential risk to the insurance sector is now, at the least, a material risk for the financial wellbeing of the wider economy," Douglas said. "The credit rating agencies are seriously exploring extending techniques used to stress test insurance companies against extreme weather and disaster risk to corporates and potentially nations. They recognise there is a risk now that needs to be properly managed."
Asked if countries or companies could have their credit ratings downgraded because they were not properly managing the risk of extreme weather to their economies or solvency, Douglas said: "Absolutely yes."
Prof Andrew Watkinson, at the University of East Anglia and not part of the research team, said: "This timely report reminds us that extreme weather events affect us all, that we are not as resilient to current extreme events as we could be, and that the nature of extreme events is likely to change in the future. At a time when deep cuts are being made in public spending it is essential that government does not lose sight of its key role in enabling resilience."
LOAD-DATE: November 27, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
207 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 27, 2014 Thursday
Late Edition - Final
The Downside of Eating Too Locally
BYLINE: By LIZ CARLISLE.
Liz Carlisle, a doctoral candidate in geography at the University of California, Berkeley, is the author of the forthcoming book ''Lentil Underground.''
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR; Pg. 35
LENGTH: 781 words
BERKELEY, Calif. -- TO appreciate the depth of our national political divide, look no further than our Thanksgiving tables. The organic turkeys and farmers' market produce of coastal urbanites face off against the frozen Butterballs and rich gravies of our rural interior, each side equally contemptuous of the other. Or so it might seem.
But as climate change begins to take its toll on farm country, this geopolitics of ''alternative'' and ''traditional'' food is changing. These days, the call to change our food system is coming straight from the heart of red-state America.
I realized this when I went home to Montana to research a book about Timeless Seeds, an organic lentil and heritage grain business that weathered the devastating drought 0f 2012. I interviewed people like Jerry Habets, a barley grower in Conrad, Mont. Three dry years at the turn of the millennium left him desperately searching for answers. Bankrupt, divorced and about to lose his family's 87-year-old homestead, Mr. Habets tried the Bible. Then he went to a psychic. And then he went organic. That improved his soil so it could store more water.
Tuna McAlpine, a rancher down the road in Valier, made the same decision 10 years earlier, when he stopped using chemicals and converted to a grass-fed livestock system. A libertarian who is concerned that the Republican Party has gotten too soft on guns, he doesn't want anybody infringing on his constitutional rights. Not the government -- and not Monsanto. ''I'm a stubborn Scotsman,'' he explains.
Mr. Habets and Mr. McAlpine are part of a powerful rising tide of the movement to change our nation's system of growing food: family farmers in the heartland who are determined to get out of the commodity trap.
Central Montana is not the type of place you might expect sustainable food to blossom. It's heavily Republican. It's hundreds of miles from the closest major metropolitan area. Frequent droughts and early impacts of climate change make it a tough place to farm, and struggling rural economies make it a tough place to earn a living.
And yet, if you look closer, there's a host of reasons sustainable food has taken root here in central Montana. Many farmers are the third or fourth generation on their land, and they'd like to leave it in good shape for their kids. Having grappled with the industrial agriculture model for decades, they understand its problems better than most of us. Indeed, their communities have been fighting corporate power since their grandparents formed cooperative wheat pools back in the 1920s.
For the food movement to have a serious impact on the issues that matter -- climate change, the average American diet, rural development -- these heartland communities need to be involved. The good news is, in several pockets of farm country, they already are.
There are dozens of efforts happening across the farm belt, from the antibiotic-free Ozark Mountain Pork Cooperative in Missouri to David Brandt's soil-building cover crops in Carroll, Ohio.
But just as these rural efforts started gaining steam, an unfortunate thing happened to the urban food movement: It went local. Hyperlocal. Ironically, conscientious consumers who ought to be the staunchest allies of these farmers are taking pledges not to buy from them, and to eat only food produced within 100 miles of home.
By all means, we should continue developing local food systems -- in both urban and rural areas. But we also need to build strategic partnerships between affluent urban consumers and rural producers in environmentally sensitive, low-income areas. We're used to this fair-trade paradigm for tropical commodities like bananas and coffee. It's time to apply it to rural America, too.
Even if you live hundreds of miles away from Montana, eating organic lentils grown there helps farmers responsibly steward their land.
Eating food that is grown responsibly -- no matter where it is grown -- is a smart strategy for combating climate change. Transportation to the final point of sale accounts for only about 4 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the average American diet.
The bigger problem is the way we produce that food, particularly the fossil-fuel-intensive manufacture of nitrogen fertilizer. Since lentils can pull nitrogen from the air and work with bacteria to convert it into fertilizer, organic farmers rotate lentils and other legumes into their fields, planting them between cycles of other crops, as a substitute for industrially produced nitrogen.
The next step in overhauling our food system is large-scale change in the American heartland. Farmers like Mr. Habets and Mr. McAlpine are up to it. We should all support them.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/opinion/the-downside-of-eating-too-locally.html
LOAD-DATE: November 27, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Op-Ed
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
208 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 26, 2014 Wednesday 1:04 PM GMT
Watering down the Climate Act would be headline-chasing populism;
British politicians need the cross-party, long-term vision that made the Climate Act possible six years ago, if they are to stay the course on climate change
BYLINE: Lord Puttnam and Tim Yeo
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 845 words
The British political landscape at the end of 2014 is fraught with uncertainty, distrust and fragmentation.
Parties are struggling to bolster support as political debates become ever more divisive. Voters see politicians as out of touch and motivated by short-term, self-serving concerns.
In this fractious landscape, sensible long-term policymaking in the public interest, and the type of cross-party consensus needed to deliver it, are in short supply. So it is worth this week marking the anniversary of one of the most successful products of consensus and collaborative working in post-war politics.
That was the Climate Change Act, which received Royal Assent six years ago today.
Ed Miliband and David Cameron both played central roles; Nick Clegg was a supporter too. The Act passed by an overwhelming majority.
It was a pragmatic response to authoritative reports in both science and economics.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had just delivered its fourth major assessment report, detailing disruptive impacts ahead unless greenhouse gas emissions were rapidly curbed. And the Stern Review had demonstrated that in anything other than the very short term, the cost of switching to a low-carbon economy is considerably less than the cost of not doing so.
Climate policy has to be set for the long term. The atmosphere retains greenhouse gases for many, many years, even centuries. Infrastructure such as power stations run for decades once built. Only cross-party agreement with an eye to the future can deliver an adequate response.
The Climate Change Act showed British politics at its best, with MPs and peers of all parties performing their fundamental role of governing in the public interest.
By showing leadership, the UK gained a moral authority in talks with other countries. Politicians, academics and officials have travelled the world explaining the benefits of such legislation to their peers and helping them develop their own versions. Following our example, more than 60 nations have set their own climate change laws.
This month's bilateral announcement on curbing greenhouse gas emissions by the US and China also bears British fingerprints following a sustained effort by British policymakers and academics to engage with their Chinese peers.
Other nations also played a role. But tireless British diplomacy, founded on the Climate Change Act, may have significantly accelerated China's decision to build renewable energy systems at a rate equivalent to one coal-fired power station every week for 15 years and triple its nuclear reactor fleet within six.
Today, the scientific and economic case underlying the Climate Change Act is even stronger than it was in 2008.
The IPCC's fifth major assessment reveals even greater confidence that human activities are the major cause of climate change.
And the New Climate Economy report, published in September, confirms that the low-carbon transition brings more benefits than costs. It also highlights the fact that this transition plays to the strengths of British business. Throughout the depths of the recession the 'green' economy sector has been the fastest-growing and most robust in Britain.
Against this backdrop, any politically-led watering-down of Britain's low-carbon ambition can only reduce the electorate's already diminishing trust in politicians. It would be short-term, headline-chasing, evidence-free populism, and would undermine Britain's leadership role in the international community.
Despite appearances, however, a strong political consensus ensures. The prime minister, chancellor and foreign secretary have all recently delivered speeches in support of tackling climate change, and the Labour, Lib Dem and Green Parties also back robust action.
But "taking action on climate change" cannot be an empty phrase. Among other things, it means delivering a planned, orderly and pragmatic transition to a low-carbon economy. It also means delivering on our international obligations, such as contributing financially to the UN's Green Climate Fund.
At the conclusion of deliberations on the Climate Change Bill, an analogy was drawn with another British "first", the bill abolishing the slave trade over 200 years ago.
Then, supporters of the slave trade argued that its abolition would ruin the economy. After 20 years of wrangling the abolitionists won the day - and the dismal economic doom-mongering opponents were proved comprehensively wrong.
In 2008, as the Climate Change Act passed through parliament, we found MPs and peers in similarly courageous form. Six years on, we should be celebrating the fact that Britain led the world in producing consensual, cross-party legislation based on strong scientific evidence and the national interest.
It would be tragic if, in today's overwrought and febrile political atmosphere, MP's andpeers of all parties failed to show the courage, confidence and leadership to stay the course.
· Lord Puttnam and Tim Yeo MP were chair and vice-chair in the bi-partisan committee that helped steer the Act through the Lords and the Commons.
LOAD-DATE: November 26, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
209 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 26, 2014 Wednesday 12:14 PM GMT
Reflecting sunlight into space has terrifying consequences, say scientists;
But 'geoengineers' say urgent nature of climate change means research must continue into controversial technology to combat rising temperatures
BYLINE: Damian Carrington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 958 words
Fighting global warming by reflecting sunlight back into space risks "terrifying" consequences including droughts and conflicts, according to three major new analyses of the promise and perils of geoengineering. But research into deliberately interfering with the climate system must continue in search of technology to use as a last resort in combating climate change, scientists have concluded.
Billions of people would suffer worse floods and droughts if technology was used to block warming sunlight, the research found. Technology that sucks carbon dioxide from the air was less risky, the analysis concluded, but will take many more decades to develop and take effect.
The carbon emissions that cause climate change are continuing to rise and, without sharp cuts, the world is set for " severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts ". This has led some to propose geoengineering but others have warned that unforeseen impacts of global-scale action to try to counteract warming could make the situation worse.
Matthew Watson, at the University of Bristol, who led one of the studies in the £5m research programme, said: "We are sleepwalking to a disaster with climate change. Cutting emissions is undoubtedly the thing we should be focusing on but it seems to be failing. Although geoengineering is terrifying to many people, and I include myself in this, [its feasibility and safety] are questions that have to be answered."
Watson led the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (Spice) project, which abandoned controversial attempts to test spraying droplets into the atmosphere from a balloon in 2012. But he said on Wednesday: "We will have to go outside eventually. There are just some things you cannot do in the lab."
Prof Steve Rayner at the University of Oxford, who led the Climate Geoengineering Governance project, said the research showed geoengineering was "neither a magic bullet nor a Pandora's box".
But he said global security would be threatened unless an international treaty was agreed to oversee any sun-blocking projects. "For example, if India had put sulphate particles into the stratosphere, even as a test, two years before the recent floods in Pakistan, no one would ever persuade Pakistan that that had not caused the floods."
The researchers examined two types of geoengineering, solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Prof Piers Forster, at the University of Leeds, led a project using in-computer models to assess six types of SRM. All reduced temperatures but all also worsened floods or droughts for 25%-65% of the global population, compared to the expected impact of climate change:
mimicking a volcano by spraying sulphate particles high into the atmosphere to block sunlight adversely affected 2.8bn people
spraying salt water above the oceans to whiten low clouds and reflect sunlight adversely affected 3bn people
thinning high cirrus clouds to allow more heat to escape Earth adversely affected 2.4bn people
generating microbubbles on the ocean surface to whiten it and reflect more sunlight adversely affected 2bn people
covering all deserts in shiny material adversely affected 4.1bn people
growing shinier crops adversely affected 1.4bn people
The adverse effect on rainfall results from changed differences in temperature between the oceans and land, which disrupts atmospheric circulation, particularly the monsoons over the very populous nations in SE Asia. Nonetheless, Forster said: "Because the [climate change] situation is so urgent, we do have to investigate the possibilities of geoengineering."
Rayner said SRM could probably be done within two decades, but was difficult to govern and the side effects would be damaging. He noted that SRM does not remove carbon from the air, so only masks climate change. "People decry doing SRM as a band aid, but band aids are useful when you are healing," he said.
In contrast, CDR tackles the root of the climate change problem by taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, would be much easier to govern and would have relatively few side effects. But Rayner said it will take multiple decades to develop CDR technologies and decades more for the CO2 reductions to produce a cooling effect. "You are going to have to build an industry to reverse engineer 200 years of fossil fuel industry, and on the same huge scale," he said.
The recent landmark report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), signed off by 194 governments, placed strong emphasis on a potential technology called bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) as a way to pull CO2 from the atmosphere. It would involve burning plants and trees, which grow by taking CO2 from the air, in power plants and then capturing the CO2 exhaust and burying it underground.
"But if you are going to do BECCS, you are going to have to grow an awful lot of trees and the impact on land use may have very significant effects on food security," said Rayner. He added that the potential costs of both SRM or CDR were very high and, if the costs of damaging side effects were included, looked much more expensive than cutting carbon emissions at source.
Both Watson and Rayner said the international goal of keeping warming below the "dangerous" level of 2C would only be possible with some form of geoengineering and that research into such technology should continue.
"If we found any [geoengineering] technology was safe, affordable and effective that could be part of a toolkit we could use to combat climate change," said Rayner.
"If we ever deploy SRM in anger it will be the clearest indication yet that we have failed as planetary guardians," said Watson. "It [would be] a watershed, fundamentally changing the way 7bn people interact with the world."
LOAD-DATE: November 26, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
210 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 26, 2014 Wednesday 9:22 AM GMT
Reflecting sunlight into space has terrifying consequences, say scientists;
But 'geoengineers' say urgent nature of climate change means research must continue into controversial technology to combat rising temperatures
BYLINE: Damian Carrington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 959 words
Fighting global warming by reflecting sunlight back into space risks "terrifying" consequences including droughts and conflicts, according to three major new analyses of the promise and perils of geoengineering. But research into deliberately interfering with the climate system must continue in search of technology to use as a last resort in combating climate change, scientists have concluded.
Billions of people would suffer worse floods and droughts if technology was used to block warming sunlight, the research found. Technology that sucks carbon dioxide from the air was less risky, the analysis concluded, but will take many more decades to develop and take effect.
The carbon emissions that cause climate change are continuing to rise and, without sharp cuts, the world is set for " severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts ". This has led some to propose geoengineering but others have warned that unforeseen impacts of global-scale action to try to counteract warming could make the situation worse.
Matthew Watson, at the University of Bristol, who led one of the studies in the £5m research programme, said: "We are sleepwalking to a disaster with climate change. Cutting emissions is undoubtedly the thing we should be focusing on but it seems to be failing. Although geoengineering is terrifying to many people, and I include myself in this, [its feasibility and safety] are questions that have to be answered,"
Watson led the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (Spice) project, which abandoned controversial attempts to test spraying droplets into the atmosphere from a balloon in 2012. But he said on Wednesday: "We will have to go outside eventually. There are just some things you cannot do in the lab."
Prof Steve Rayner, at the University of Oxford and who led the Climate Geoengineering Governance project, said the research showed geoengineering was "neither a magic bullet nor a Pandora's box".
But he said global security would be threatened unless an international treaty was agreed to oversee any sun-blocking projects. "For example, if India had put sulphate particles into the stratosphere, even as a test, two years before the recent floods in Pakistan, no one would ever persuade Pakistan that that had not caused the floods."
The researchers examined two types of geoengineering, solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Prof Piers Forster, at the University of Leeds, led a project using in-computer models to assess six types of SRM. All reduced temperatures but all also worsened floods or droughts for 25%-65% of the global population, compared to the expected impact of climate change:
mimicking a volcano by spraying sulphate particles high into the atmosphere to block sunlight adversely affected 2.8bn people
spraying salt water above the oceans to whiten low clouds and reflect sunlight adversely affected 3bn people
thinning high cirrus clouds to allow more heat to escape Earth adversely affected 2.4bn people
generating microbubbles on the ocean surface to whiten it and reflect more sunlight adversely affected 2bn people
covering all deserts in shiny material adversely affected 4.1bn people
growing shinier crops adversely affected 1.4bn people
The adverse effect on rainfall results from changed differences in temperature between the oceans and land, which disrupts atmospheric circulation, particularly the monsoons over the very populous nations in SE Asia. Nonetheless, Forster said: "Because the [climate change] situation is so urgent, we do have to investigate the possibilities of geoengineering."
Rayner said SRM could probably be done within two decades, but was difficult to govern and the side effects would be damaging. He noted that SRM does not remove carbon from the air, so only masks climate change. "People decry doing SRM as a band aid, but band aids are useful when you are healing," he said.
In contrast, CDR tackles the root of the climate change problem by taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, would be much easier to govern and would have relatively few side effects. But Rayner said it will take multiple decades to develop CDR technologies and decades more for the CO2 reductions to produce a cooling effect. "You are going to have to build an industry to reverse engineer 200 years of fossil fuel industry, and on the same huge scale," he said.
The recent landmark report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), signed off by 194 governments, placed strong emphasis on a potential technology called bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) as a way to pull CO2 from the atmosphere. It would involve burning plants and trees, which grow by taking CO2 from the air, in power plants and then capturing the CO2 exhaust and burying it underground.
"But if you are going to do BECCS, you are going to have to grow an awful lot of trees and the impact on land use may have very significant effects on food security," said Rayner. He added that the potential costs of both SRM or CDR were very high and, if the costs of damaging side effects were included, looked much more expensive than cutting carbon emissions at source.
Both Watson and Rayner said the international goal of keeping warming below the "dangerous" level of 2C would only be possible with some form of geoengineering and that research into such technology should continue.
"If we found any [geoengineering] technology was safe, affordable and effective that could be part of a toolkit we could use to combat climate change," said Rayner.
"If we ever deploy SRM in anger it will be the clearest indication yet that we have failed as planetary guardians," said Watson. "It [would be] a watershed, fundamentally changing the way 7bn people interact with the world."
LOAD-DATE: November 26, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
211 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 26, 2014 Wednesday 9:18 AM GMT
block-time published-time 6.38pm AEST Night;
Abbott under pressure to drop the defence minister, David Johnston, after the PM was forced to defend the Australian Submarine Company, while Jacqui Lambie expects a deal on defence pay. As it happened
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 9039 words
block-time published-time 6.38pm AEST
Night time political wrap
David Johnston has been censured by the senate after a three hour debate, with the support of six crossbenchers as Tony Abbott declared his confidence in the embattled defence minister. The last time a cabinet minister was censured was 2005.
Bill Shorten has launched a scathing critique of Tony Abbott, casting the Australian prime minister as a backward-looking failure at home and "adrift" on the world stage. The opposition leader said the government had "no prospect" of getting its higher education changes through the Senate, had lost the argument for other contentious budget proposals, and should drop the measures before next month's economic update.
Tony Abbott accused Bill Shorten of xenophobia for criticising the possibility of a Japanese contractor manufacturing Australian submarines.
The senate passed the counter terrorism bill on sharing intelligence with the ADF and expanding control orders.
David Leyonhjelm introduced his same sex marriage bill to force the Coalition party room to debate the issue.
A report into sexual abuse in the defence force has recommended a royal commission.
Thanks for your company. We have had a lot of fun with #BrickSenate and appreciate your similarly offbeat sense of humour. Mike Bowers was a brick (geddit!) as was my colleagues.
Lastly, that Xenophon paddle that began the blog, has been sighted in a number of places in the parliament. A little like a garden gnome, it has travelled.
Good night.
Up the creek with a paddle. Photograph: Guardian Australia/Guardian Australia We seek it here, we seek it there. Photograph: Guardian Australia/Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 6.07pm AEST
Just back to duelling chambers during question time. There is a small point I want to pick up on.
As you would have heard all week, Tony Abbott has taken a lot of grief for his broken promise on the ABC and SBS, including from his own party room. Part of the problem is that Abbott made such a feature of under-promising after Julia Gillard's famous promise,
there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.
Leaving aside the whole carbon price argument, after relentless attack by Abbott, Gillard conceded on February 27, 2011:
Yes, I did say that and circumstances have changed.
Today in question time, Tony Abbott used a very similar form of words on his ABC promise.
Circumstances changed, events moved on.
block-time published-time 5.54pm AEST
I overlooked this story in the Financial Review by Phil Coorey this morning. Rumours are swirling this afternoon that it may come to pass as early as today. This was Coorey's take.
The federal government is poised to dump the $7 Medicare charge and water down its paid parental leave scheme as it seeks to clear itself of problems before Christmas and begin the new year on the front foot.
Other contentious budget measures, including the higher education deregulation, still the subject of furious negotiation with the Senate crossbench, are under a cloud because the government is determined to rid itself of damaging issues it feels it cannot resolve.
After taking the backdown proposals to cabinet and the outer-ministry on Monday night, Tony Abbott told his MPs on Tuesday the past year had been difficult and, at times, tumultuous, but there was reason to be optimistic about the next 18 months.
Eager to start 2015 free of baggage, he told a meeting of Liberal MPs, and then a subsequent joint meeting of Liberal and Nationals MPs, there were "one or two barnacles on the ship but by Christmas they will have been dealt with".
We have no confirmation yet. I'm just passing on whispers from the corridor.
block-time published-time 5.47pm AEST
A word about the sub vote. South Australian independent Nick Xenophon is ill this afternoon. He had a pair, so he effectively voted for both the suspension of standing orders and the censure motion. Given all round bollocking for the government this morning (with paddle), we could have guessed he would enthusiastically censure Johnston.
block-time published-time 5.44pm AEST
David Leyonhjelm is introducing his Freedom to Marry bill "to reduce government intervention in marriage".
Tanya Plibersek, who has her own same sex marriage bill which has been ready for a year, made some comments this afternoon on her position.
As I have said many times, I will only introduce the bill when Tony Abbott allows members of the Coalition partyroom a conscience vote, because that's the only way the bill would have any prospect of succeeding.
Leyonhjelm is taking the opposite tack - introducing the bill so that it forces the Coalition to consider the issue in the party room.
block-time published-time 5.33pm AEST
Senate censures defence minister David Johnston
Voting with Labor: Greens, Lazarus, Wang, Lambie, Muir and Madigan.
Voting with the government: Day and Leyonhjelm.
Senate censures David Johnson for disparaging remarks about ASC.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 5.34pm AEST
block-time published-time 5.28pm AEST
Lambie will support the censure motion.
Division now on Labor's motion to censure the defence minister David Johnston over his comments that he would not trust the government owned ASC to "build a canoe".
block-time published-time 5.21pm AEST
Jacqui Lambie is speaking on the censure. She says the subs should be built in Australia. Johnston is arrogantly living off the Anzac legend while cutting the pay of the Anzac diggers, says Lambie.
He was missing in action when the real wages were cut, says Lambie. She has prepared a private members bill to link ADF pay to politicians wages.
block-time published-time 5.11pm AEST
Senator Faulkner is reading from a defence manual. I missed the name but it appears to be a procurement manual or in other words, How To Be A Good Defence Minister.
The issue is whether a reasonable person would feel the minister had an apprehension of bias (on procurement).
Faulkner welcomed Tony Abbott's statement supporting the ASC.
He says Johnston should assure the senate he has sought advice on all procurement processes on the submarine contracts and he should share the advice with the senate to show things are above board.
block-time published-time 4.59pm AEST
Senator John Faulkner, a former defence minister, has been goaded into speaking by George Brandis.
Faulkner is saying when he was defence minister, he tried to keep defence bipartisan and refused to dump on previous ministers.
So is just going to limit his remarks on David Johnston to "process and probity issues".
I am concerned that the comments by the minister of defence are not consistent with these requirements to act ethically and particularly equitably.
block-time published-time 4.41pm AEST
South Australian minister Martin Hamilton-Smith, former Liberal and now independent, has urged the federal government to get state government, industry and unions in a room, lock the door and work it out.
block-time published-time 4.34pm AEST
In the senate, it is Eric Abetz ' turn to defend Johnston. He reprimands Labor for moving "flippant" censure motions.
Assistant defence minister Stuart Robert is speaking to David Speers at Sky right now on the government position.
Absolutely we trust ASC.
block-time published-time 4.05pm AEST
Stephen Conroy turns his attack towards Christopher Pyne, an Adelaide MP, who this morning said Johnston should not have made the remarks. Conroy says Pyne has said nothing to defend the Adelaide-based company ASC for six months.
I welcome the fact that Mr Pyne has grown a spine.
Julie Bishop, he says, simply said she accepted the defence minister's statement.
SA minister Jamie Briggs, he says, called the comments wrong.
His own colleagues have abandoned him, says Conroy. No friends on his frontbench or his backbench.
Put your vote where your mouth is, says Conroy. Stand up for your state.
block-time published-time 3.59pm AEST
Stephen Conroy up now, saying his comments:
undermine national security.
Conroy says John Howard told Tony Abbott not to put David Johnston in the defence ministry. Had Abbott taken the "wise advice" of John Howard, the government would not be in the position.
block-time published-time 3.55pm AEST
David Johnston is still speaking with great calm, I might say. He doesn't seem worried by the reaction.
For my sins I have worn the odium of two hours this morning.
He says the men who are doing the welding and fit outs at ASC are doing a good job, its the management that is the problem.
block-time published-time 3.53pm AEST
Back to Bill Shorten, who gave a personal explanation in the lower house after question time in response to Abbott's accusation of xenophobia over the possibility of a Japanese contractor for submarines.
Shorten said he said no such thing and that he supported ASC.
Here is what Shorten said to a rally in Adelaide on the issue.
For goodness sake, Tony Abbott, buy a map of the world...We are an island, Tony Abbott, and our navy matters...This is a government with a short memory...In the Second World War, 366 merchant ships were sunk off Australia.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 3.53pm AEST
block-time published-time 3.43pm AEST
We saw promises, doorstops, no decisions and no action by Kevin Rudd, says Johnston.
The Defence minister David Johnston during question time. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 3.40pm AEST
David Johnston says Labor had SAS pay adjusted and SAS troops serving in the field received debt letters from the government.
The comparison is off the planet.
Johnston said the only threat to the future submarine program was the exercise in "fooling the Australian public" by Labor.
You set out to pretend you were building 12 submarines.
So here we are in 2014, and I have had to start from scratch.
block-time published-time 3.37pm AEST
David Johnston is on his feet defending himself yet again.
He says the greatest insult he has ever seen was when Julia Gillard sent a bodyguard to the National Security Committee.
You were the greatest underminers in Australia's defence capabilities in the six and a half years you were there.
block-time published-time 3.33pm AEST
At least the censure motion has brought old friends together in the senate. Though we can't show you the real photo, Jacqui Lambie has talked to Glenn Lazarus for the first time since the rift. By the way, that's Ricky Muir on the other side of Jacqui.
Jacqui Lambie talks to Glenn Lazarus #BrickSenate@murpharoo@gabriellechan@GuardianAushttp://t.co/dxZxKbj6NBpic.twitter.com/7dTRrjSW7U
- Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) November 26, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 3.34pm AEST
block-time published-time 3.31pm AEST
Penny Wong accuses Johnston and the government of demonising ASC to justify breaking the promise to build the subs in Adelaide.
That is a fundamentally dishonourable thing to do.
The government is abandoning the shipbuilding industry in Adelaide.
block-time published-time 3.26pm AEST
Labor censure motion of David Johnston
The Labor motion in the senate is thus:
I move that the Senate censures the Minister for Defence (Senator Johnston) for:
1) Insulting the men and women of ASC by stating he "wouldn't trust them to build a canoe";
2) Undermining confidence in Australia's defence capability;
3) Threatening the integrity of the Future Submarine Project, Australia's largest defence procurement, by demonstrating bias and failing to conduct a competitive tender;
4) Breaking his promise made on 8 May 2013 to build 12 new submarines at ASC in South Australia; and
5) Cutting the real pay, Christmas and recreation leave for Australian Defence Force personnel.
Penny Wong says with his comments, Johnston has compromised the procurement process for future submarine contracts. Billions of dollars and thousands of jobs are involved.
block-time published-time 3.24pm AEST
In the lower house, Labor is also prosecuting the same case against David Johnston in a matter of public importance. They failed to get a censure motion up earlier today. The MPI is "The Prime Minister's refusal to sack the Minister for Defence".
block-time published-time 3.22pm AEST
So South Australian senator Bob Day did not support a move to allow a censure debate, notwithstanding Johnston's comments about a large company and industry in his state.
block-time published-time 3.19pm AEST
Vote goes 39 to 33, which means Labor now moves its motion to censure defence minister David Johnston. Penny Wong will now argue the case.
block-time published-time 3.15pm AEST
Labor gets the votes of the Greens, Lazarus, Wang, Lambie, Muir, Madigan.
The government only gets Day and Leyonhjelm.
No sign of Xenophon.
The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Penny Wong during question time. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 3.12pm AEST
Senate now dividing on the motion to suspend standing orders. Which way will the crossbenchers go?
block-time published-time 3.11pm AEST
Christopher Pyne defends the speaker against Burke and Bowen.
It was full of argument, inference, imputation, insults, ironical expressions and you ruled it out quite correctly, says Pyne.
block-time published-time 3.10pm AEST
In the house, Labor's Tony Burke asks Abbott : who came up with the strategy of lying about lying and how do you reckon it's going?
Speaker Bishop rules it offensive and out of order. Burke rephrases. Speaker Bishop is still offended and gives the question away. Burke just got punted for impertinance.
block-time published-time 3.08pm AEST
George Brandis is again defending Johnston, whom he called the finest defence minister of recent times. He calls the comments "exuberance".
So you know, government members have also called the comments:
Rhetorical flourish
Overstatement in question time
Slip of the tongue
block-time published-time 3.06pm AEST
Labor's Stephen Conroy has just posited that given The Australian opinion writers have suggested Johnston has to go.
You know what happens when the Australian says you are in the way of the government. You have to scrape the barnacle off the bottom and move on.
block-time published-time 3.00pm AEST
Labor and Greens try to censure Johnston
Christine Milne says the Greens will support Labor's suspension of standing orders to debate censure of David Johnston.
We should have a debate on the confidence of the minister.
She says Johnston has showed he doesn't have the capacity to deal with the procurement in defence.
block-time published-time 2.55pm AEST
Eric Abetz answers the motion to suspend standing orders.
This motion is about getting a very capable defence minister who in opposition saw the demise of a Labor defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon.
Even Johnston laughs and looks down, slightly embarrassed.
Abetz calls Johnston's remarks that "he would not trust ASC to build a canoe" an
overstatement in question time.
block-time published-time 2.51pm AEST
Wong to Johnston, will the minister undertake to build 12 news subs at ASC in Adelaide?
Warrior Penny Wong on her feet in the #BrickSenate. Photograph by Mike Bowers. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
The one important ingredient missing from (Wong's) case is truth.
Johnston refuses to answer.
Warrior Wong moves a suspension of standing orders in the senate to censure David Johnston.
It is untenable for him to continue in the ministry of defence.
Liberal senator Ian Macdonald tries to intervene but is sat down.
Most people would say this is a legitimate matter for debate, given the debate in Australia in the past 24 hours, says Wong. She says his comments effectively knocked out one of the bidders in the tender process.
block-time published-time 2.44pm AEST
David Leyonhjelm asks about the Renewable Energy Target and whether the RET was an achievable target.
Mathias Cormann says they are taking advice on it at the moment.
This is about Leyonhjelm and the government's deal to rewrite the RET as foreshadowed in this story by Lenore Taylor.
Leyonhjelm again asks about spiralling power prices and whether the government will work with the crossbench on reform.
We will work with everyone, says Cormann because we want to ensure Australian manufacturing remains competitive.
block-time published-time 2.37pm AEST
In the house, Shorten to Abbott : I refer to reports back today that the PM scraping off barnacles. Which barnacle will the PM scrape off today? His disaster of a defence minister or his disaster of a GP tax?
I reckon what we need to lose is Barnacle Bill! Let 's get rid of Barnacle Bill, says Abbott.
block-time published-time 2.35pm AEST
In the senate, David Johnston said he sat down with the chair of ASC to work out the problems between the government and the company and "for my trouble, I don't think I got very far".
(Digging deeper.)
He says he did not criticise the workers.
Johnston is asked again at his remarks.
It may have been that I got over involved in the issues.
Back on to union slush funds and the registered organisations bill.
block-time published-time 2.31pm AEST
Labor is asking Tony Abbott again if he will sack Johnston given he has overseen a cut in real wages to the ADF?
The Government is proposing a 1.5% increase for members of our Defence Forces. So the premise of the member's question is simply false. Simply false. Simply false. So, Madam Speaker, if members opposite want to have a proper debate in this House, they should deal with facts, not fiction. I've concluded my answer.
Sounds like the PM has not grappled with the concept of real wages.
block-time published-time 2.27pm AEST
The man of the moment.
The Defence minister David Johnston during question time. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 2.26pm AEST
In the senate, the government is reprising the former Labor MP Craig Thomson's case. Thomson has been in court this week. Eric Abetz is outlining that there is more than "one bad apple" in the trade union movement. In the lower house, Christopher Pyne and justice minister Michael Keenan are talking about corruption in the construction industry, primarily the CFMEU.
block-time published-time 2.24pm AEST
Abbott is asked by Adam Bandt if he can visit Victoria.
With less than 72 hours until people start voting in Saturday's Victorian election, will the PM please spend as much time in Melbourne as possible? Will the PM explain his Liberal Government's vision for a society where wind turbines don't get built, money is cut from public education and public transport gets nothing at all.
Abbott does not take a backward step.
I'm very happy to give the member my vision for Victoria and for Melbourne. My vision for Melbourne is a Melbourne with East West Link built. That is my vision for Melbourne. My vision for Victoria is a state that's run by the premier, not by the leader of the CFMEU, that's what my vision is for Melbourne.
block-time published-time 2.20pm AEST
Abbott has also said defence minister Johnston does not deserve his treatment.
This minister does not deserve to be undermined by members opposite... just because of a slip of the tongue in the senate yesterday
block-time published-time 2.18pm AEST
Abbott on Shorten :
The Leader of the Opposition went to the ASC and he said that the last thing Australia should ever happen is a Japanese submarine. That is what he said because remember World War II! That is exactly what he said. He was kind of like a reverse John Cleese, that's what he was. Remember the war.
block-time published-time 2.17pm AEST
Tony Abbott accuses Shorten of xenophobia
Tony Abbott has just accused Bill Shorten of not wanting a Japanese company to build submarines because of WWII. He accuses Shorten of xenophobia "when he has his union leaders' hat on".
The Leader of the opposition says that we could have submarines as long as they have nothing to do with Japan because of what happened in World War II
block-time published-time 2.15pm AEST
David Johnston said Labor's charge of bias towards a Japanese submarine company, away from the ASC, is completely unfounded.
I actually don't make the decision, it is such a large contract so it will go to the National Security Committee. The government makes the decision, says Johnston.
Defence minister Johnston "I took my medicine for about an hour this morning" #QT@gabriellechan@GuardianAuspic.twitter.com/mchKUS3xfi
- Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) November 26, 2014
block-time published-time 2.11pm AEST
Cory Bernardi asks David Johnston to outline why the ASC contracts were so behind, following the management of former Gillard minister Penny Wong.
Cory Bernardi in the #BrickSenate. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
It's about the ASC's previous contract on the Air Warfare Destroyers.
So the government is mounting a defence of defence minister. Johnston is even getting the Dixer questions in the senate, maintaining him in the public eye.
block-time published-time 2.06pm AEST
Johnston said one of the principal reasons for my contrition is because SA Liberal leader Steven Marshall criticised him.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 2.14pm AEST
block-time published-time 2.05pm AEST
Tony Abbott says David Johnston has "my full confidence".
Sounds like Johnston is safe for now.
block-time published-time 2.04pm AEST
In the lower house, Abbott says Johnston is doing a great job.
The minister for defence is doing an outstanding job, absolutely outstanding job., following six years of neglect by members opposite, says Abbott.
block-time published-time 2.02pm AEST
In senate question time, Penny Wong asks David Johnston to explain why he should not resign.
Johnston says:
I took my medicine.
Johnston agrees he said the wrong thing and he regrets it.
block-time published-time 2.00pm AEST
David Johnston has responded to the defence task force
I recognise that considerable work remains to be done. Further support is required for those who have contacted the task force. The government is determined to ensure that the task force terms of reference be fully and independently discharged. Therefore, while the task force was due to conclude on 30 November this year, the government has decided to extend the task force with a view to bringing its important work to a timely and appropriate conclusion.
block-time published-time 1.55pm AEST
Question time coming up people. We are expecting a lot of action in the senate. It's going to be hard to cover both the senate and the house of reps but we will do our best. Here are the senators limbering up.
Senate Chamber #BrickSenate Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 1.25pm AEST
Bill Shorten is asked about the budget and what should be dropped in the face of budget problem. How should Joe Hockey handle it? Shorten predicts the government may drop higher education deregulation as one of the "barnacles" Tony Abbott said he would remove.
Well the first thing is he should just go down to Bunnings, not Bunnings, go to Kmart or Target, buy himself a white tea towel, put it on a wooden broom and wave surrender on his silly changes.
block-time published-time 1.18pm AEST
Shorten is asked about Labor's idea of fairness and how it equates with asylum seeker policy, where Labor has moved to the right.
I believe that Labor's push for regional resettlement has been the cornerstone upon which the people smugglers' model has been broken. In terms of this government and what they're doing in terms of their temporary visas, we need to look at the detail carefully.
And fairness?
block-time published-time 1.14pm AEST
A number of questions have been asked pushing Bill Shorten to acknowledge the mistakes Labor made in government. He vaguely mentions not being brave enough on climate change.
there's no doubt and we've taken responsibility for various matters over the last year and a quarter. But we missed an opportunity in 2009 with the collapse of Copenhagen and in hindsight, I'm not saying I had this view at the time but in hindsight, and hindsight is an invaluable tool, we've all used it, is we should have pushed for a double dissolution and there is no doubt that Tony Abbott ran a very effective campaign against the high fixed price on carbon that we put in that term. So yeah, I get that we need to rebuild trust.
block-time published-time 1.10pm AEST
Mike Bowers, meantime, is having too much fun.
Heffernan- I withdraw Mr President that Senator Conroy is a blockhead #BrickSenate@gabriellechan@GuardianAuspic.twitter.com/d4xJtzXfcT
- Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) November 26, 2014
block-time published-time 1.05pm AEST
Finally Shorten addresses Labor's reputation from the previous government:
I recognise that Labor has to rebuild the nation's faith in us. We are are determined to earn the trust of the Australian people. We will earn their trust and we will repay their trust. Today I give Australians this commitment. We will seek a mandate based on a positive plan. We will not ask the Australian people to vote for us just because we are not the Abbott Government.
That final line a direct nod to the last election.
block-time published-time 1.02pm AEST
Bill Shorten at the Press Club:
For people on lower earning careers, like teaching, nursing and community work, and for women in particular, Christopher Pyne is playing loan shark. Today it takes a woman social worker around 9 years to pay off her degree. Under Tony Abbott's changes she would never pay back her total HECS bill.
block-time published-time 1.00pm AEST
Bill Shorten prosecutes the case against the Coalition's budget while moving onto the Labor agenda.
Labor would have signed up to the China-led Asian Infrastructure Bank, which Abbott has declined until the rules change.
Shorten says if Australia is to competing in the "new world order" governments have to create jobs in a global economy. Shorten again pushes his higher education priority, in contrast to the government's higher education deregulation, which will increase university fees.
A lifetime of student debt is not a reform.
block-time published-time 12.50pm AEST
Bill Shorten says Abbott was "blind-sided" by China and the US on climate change and described as a "flat-earther" by Tories in Britain.
The PM was lost in space. While real world events were moving around him. Remember, even the hyped up shirt front with President Putin turned into a butterfly kiss. The uncompromising words were left to Germany's Angela Merkel and Canada's Stephen Harper while our PM settled for a photo with Putin nursing a couple of bewildered koalas. The ignominy of it. And it wasn't just President Obama's inspirational speech or his decisive actions alongside President Xi that threw Tony Abbott's stubborn reactionism into sharp relief. Soon the Tories in Britain were calling him a flat-earther. Japan and Canada announced their substantial contributions to the green climate fund, an institution which our bewildered PM has previously dismissed as socialism masquerading as environmentalism.
block-time published-time 12.45pm AEST
Bill Shorten raised the G20 speech:
On that Saturday morning in eight excruciating minutes, the PM delivered a weird, cringe-worthy, little Australia lecture to the global community...There he was, boasting about taking Australia backwards on climate change. There he was bemoaning the massively difficult job he has as Australian PM, whining about the unpopularity of his GP tax and his plan for $100,000 degrees. And presenting live to the world a negative character reference of his own people, the Australian public, blaming them, our people, for his government's failures. Damning our country as selfish, anti-modern, anti-reform, anti-change.
block-time published-time 12.42pm AEST
Bill Shorten has said Tony Abbott is not suitable to be Australia's prime minister. He has outlined the G20 events, including Abbott's speech to world leaders on his domestic agenda.
On every issue the same problem - no vision, no plan, no trust. Tony Abbott has no vision for foreign policy, for Australia's foreign policy future or our economic future. And he is deliberately and wilfully deepening the trust deficit, ignoring the wishes and the wisdom of the Australian people.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.42pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.39pm AEST
Lunch time political summary
David Johnston has said his comments on the Australian Submarine Corporation were not meant to offend but expressed frustration at its past performance. Labor tried to censure Johnston but failed on numbers.
A report into sexual abuse in the defence force has recommended a royal commission.
The senate continues to debate the counter terrorism bill which would share intelligence between the security agencies and the defence forces.
The Speaker Bronwyn Bishop has introduced a bill to beef up parliamentary security.
block-time published-time 12.33pm AEST
While the senate goes through its various amendments on counter terrorism, which will not pass as Labor is supporting, Bill Shorten is about to speak at the National Press Club.
block-time published-time 12.21pm AEST
Meanwhile Senator Bill Heffernan provides a little plain English.
Senator Heffernan "I withdraw Mr President that senator Conroy is a boofhead" @gabriellechan@GuardianAuspic.twitter.com/Ud48Lgqlmx
- Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) November 26, 2014
block-time published-time 12.05pm AEST
George Brandis is speaking to his counter terrorism legislation in the senate. There has been an interesting argument this morning enunciated by Brandis around counter terrorism and the paradigm of the debate on national security.
It carves out the difference between suspecting a terrorist act in order to stop a crime before it happens as opposed to providing enough evidence to prove a terrorist act, after the event.
It goes to some of the debate in Britain around the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby by terrorists on the street outside his barracks and the issue of whether the crime could have been prevented.
The trouble with the counter terrorism debate, says Brandis, is that many groups, including the Greens are arguing about the laws to stop terrorism in a "criminal law paradigm" where an event has already occurred. These laws are to stop terrorism before the event.
Brandis to Penny Wright:
I understand you have a philosophical objection to control orders themselves but we are not debating the broad point now, we are debating the narrow point.
Within the control order regime, ought there be a capacity if all other conditions are satisfied, ought there be a jurisdiction to issue a control order, where to do so would substantially assist in preventing the provision or support for or the facilitation of a terrorist act.
Instead what you and your Green people would have us do is provide an order where a person HAD provided support for a terrorist act...
If there is enough evidence to show a person has provided support for or has committed a terrorist act, well you wouldnt be issuying a control order, you would be issuing an arrrest warrent....
Once the terrorist act has occurred, it's too late. That's why we have to move out of this criminal law paradigm to think that this is about punishment for offences that have been committed.
The purposes of counter terrorism policy and counter terrorism law is to provide the apparatus to interdict so as to prevent the occurrence of a terrorism act and control orders, judiciously hedged by the many safeguards with which they are hedged, are a very important part of that apparatus.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.15pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.35am AEST
George Brandis strong defence of David Johnston provides a momentary paddle.
George Brandis defends David Johnston in the senate. #BrickSenate Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
(Independent senator Nick Xenophon said Johnston's comments regarding the Australian Submarine Corporation landed the defence minister up the creek without a paddle.)
block-time published-time 11.30am AEST
The senate is now back onto the counter terror laws, that is the amendment that allows Asis to share intelligence with the defence forces and for the extension of control orders. Penny Wright has raised George Brandis' refusal to answer questions in the committee stage of debate yesterday.
He flat-out refused to answer legitimate questions about the Bill - sitting in the Senate wilfully ignoring me - without the courtesy to even explain the basis on which answers were being refused. I was asking these questions on behalf of all those who do not have the opportunity: legal experts, human rights organisations, civil liberties groups and those at the forefront of national security policy.
Wright said while some changes had been made to allay fears on the bill, not enough had been done.
And yet Senator Brandis could not even find it within himself to give me - and by extension, the Australian public - the courtesy of a response.
Brandis says he wants to stick to the substance of the bill rather than the senate processes.
I don't want to have a meta debate. I don't want to have a debate about a debate.
block-time published-time 11.16am AEST
A slip of the tongue, says Brandis.
George Brandis in full flight, defending David Johnston. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 11.09am AEST
During the procedural votes over censures of David Johnston and Malcolm Turnbull, there was a little tete a tete between Anthony Albanese and Christopher Pyne - two of sharpest parliamentary operators in the house.
Pyne, as leader of the house, was getting to the end of his tether even though it was only 10am in the morning. He yelled:
Grow up you losers.
We could not pick up Albanese's reply.
Shadow for Infrastructure Anthony Albanese and the Leader of the House Christopher Pyne exchange pleasantries. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 11.02am AEST
Seantor David Leyonhjelm has revealed more on his Freedom to Marry bill, allowing same sex marriage bill. Here is a soundbite from his speech to the senate last night. Note he has not yet introduced the bill.
Those arguments fall under three heads: liberty, conscience and state power. I turn first to liberty. To most people, marriage equality means the right to get married irrespective of gender or sexual preference. But it is much more than that; it is the right to live your life as you choose and not have the government impose a particular view on you.
Daniel Hurst has a story here on the bill.
The bill, which Leyonhjelm will not bring to a vote until he has the numbers, makes a very simple change.
It changes the word "man" and "woman" to "2 people". It also provides a counterpoint by allowing civil celebrants to refuse to marry on the grounds of conscience. This is a power religious ministers already have.
block-time published-time 10.51am AEST
The senate debate regarding David Johnston continues, with attorney general George Brandis defending the minister. He - and Abetz before him - raise the occasion when Labor's Stephen Conroy attacked General Angus Campbell in senate estimates.
That was over the Coalition's asylum seeker policy was under attack and Conroy essentially accused Campbell of being involved in a political cover up.
A rather peeved Brandis describes Campbell as:
A better man than senator Conroy will ever be.
He quotes Campbell's reply to Conroy, describing his "extreme offence" at the statement.
To the eternal "disgrace and shame" of senator Conroy, he never apologised to Campbell, says Brandis. Conroy, "the alternative defence minister".
When my friend the defence minister made a slip of the tongue...
Then Brandis goes into reports that Julia Gillard sent her bodyguard to the national security committee.
block-time published-time 10.38am AEST
Helen Davidson has done a first take on the report into sexual abuse in the defence force.
The federal government must hold a royal commission into allegations of abuse during the entire history of the Australian Defence Force training academy (Adfa), an investigative taskforce has recommended.
The defence minister, David Johnston, tabled two reports by the defence abuse response taskforce (Dart) to parliament on Wednesday.
The first covered allegations and instances of abuse within the ADF over several decades, while the second looks more specifically at cases at Adfa.
In justifying its call for a royal commission into Adfa, Dart said the ADF was unable to adequately deal with the cases itself as so much time had passed since they occurred or were reported.
"The taskforce has concluded that the only way of ensuring confidence that the allegations of very serious abuse at Adfa can be thoroughly and completely investigated - and appropriately dealt with - is by way of a royal commission," said the chairman of the taskforce, Len Roberts-Smith QC.
It will be interesting to see if the government, which began its life quickly establishing two royal commissions (into home insulations and trade unions ), accepts the recommendation for a sexual abuse royal commission.
block-time published-time 10.26am AEST
Here's Eric Abetz defending David Johnston.
Eric. Abetz defends defence minister David Johnston @GuardianAus@gabriellechanhttp://t.co/dxZxKbj6NBpic.twitter.com/TFBK80gW6V
- Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) November 25, 2014
block-time published-time 10.24am AEST
I would like to correct myself on a procedural matter brought to my attention by a thoughtful rodent.
Re politics live blog @gabriellechan@GuardianAus only bills are guillotined. Motions are gagged. That's right @AuSenate ? #proceduralnerdery
- Rat (@ThoughtfulRat) November 25, 2014
I have checked and that is right so I will amend my language from now on. If you are going to knock something off, it is very important to note whether it is guillotined or gagged. There may be a cartoon in that.
block-time published-time 10.16am AEST
Parliamentary security bill
Speaker Bishop is making a statement to the house on security around parliament house. She is introducing the parliamentary service amendment bill 2014. It will:
enable a representative of Australian Federal Police to be security management board of parliament.
amend the remit of the board to allow it to provide advice to presiding officers (Speaker and President) on the management or operation of security.
Labor's Tony Burke says they have been briefed on the bill but have not seen the detail. He says while Labor agrees in principle, he would like to see the bill before going straight into a debate.
Speaker Bishop agrees to adjourn the debate.
Burkas were not mentioned.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.17am AEST
block-time published-time 10.12am AEST
Eric Abetz has just given a full dissertation on what a fantastic job defence minister David Johnston has been doing. He countered Labor's attack with the arguments that:
a) Labor had cut the defence budget.
b) we are all human.
c) leave him alone.
block-time published-time 10.04am AEST
The house is now going through a series of procedural votes on the Turnbull suspension, guillotining, putting questions, moving motions.
block-time published-time 10.03am AEST
Liberal member gets punted.
The Liberal member for Bass Andrew Nickolic is evicted from the chamber. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 10.01am AEST
This is the Labor motion on Malcolm Turnbull.
1. Notes that:
(a) on Monday 24 November 2014, the Prime Minister stated to the House: "We are applying an efficiency dividend to the ABC"; and
(b) the next day, the Minister for Communications directly contradicted the Prime Minister's statement in the House by stating on Sky News, "It is not an efficiency dividend," and again, "This is not an efficiency dividend"; and
Censures the Prime Minister for deliberately misleading:
(a) the Parliament;
(b) the Australian people when he promised on the night before the last election that there would be "No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST, and no cuts to the ABC or SBS"; and
(c) the Australian people when he said, "It is an absolute principle of democracy that governments should not and must not say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards."
Government has guillotined debate.
Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen during a lively opening session as the opposition tried to suspend standing orders in Parliament. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 9.56am AEST
The house is now censuring Malcolm Turnbull on the ABC/SBS. Government has guillotined debate again. Labor's Jason Clare gets less than a sentence out before Christopher Pyne shuts him down.
block-time published-time 9.53am AEST
This is the Labor motion censuring David Johnston that was guillotined in the house first thing.
That the House:
Notes that the Minister for Defence;
(a) Promised on 8 May 2013 that the Coalition "will deliver those submarines from right here at ASC in South Australia. The Coalition today is committed to building 12 new submarines here in Adelaide.", and then broke that promise worth $20 billion; and
(b) Cut the real pay, Christmas and recreation leave for Australia's Defence men and women; and
(c) Insulted the highly skilled and dedicated workers at ASC on 25 November 2014 by saying he 'did not trust them to build a canoe'.
Calls on the Prime Minister to immediately attend the House and confirm:
(a) why he has failed to direct the Minister for Defence to withdraw his insulting remarks; and
(b) whether he retains full confidence in the Minister for Defence.
Should the Prime Minister fail to attend the House, that the House:
(a) condemns the Prime Minister for his failure to stand up for Australia's defence personnel;
(b) calls on the Prime Minister to sack the Minister for Defence.
Debate was shut down.
block-time published-time 9.50am AEST
Labor have characterised Tony Abbott's statement backing ASC as "cutting loose" David Johnston.
It was remiss not to bring you Abbott's comments earlier.
Whilst ASC has had challenges meeting the government's cost and schedule expectations of the Air Warfare Destroyer program, we are working closely with ASC on a reform strategy to improve shipyard performance and productivity. It is early days, but the government is confident that ASC and its partners will successfully turn the corner on this important build.
block-time published-time 9.45am AEST
South Australian Senator Penny Wong has answered Johnston is a fiery speech.
Well, senators that was the minister for defence. This is the gentleman who is supposed to be in charge of our defence personnel who wants us to forgive him and all workers in our ship building industry to forgive him because it was a regrettable rhetorical flourish.
Let us understand this Defence Minister's behaviour. This Defence Minister's behaviour, this is the man who has broken his election promise to build 12 submarines in Adelaide.
This is a man who has trashed the reputation of a major defence industry firm. This is a man who has insulted thousand of hard working Australians employed at the Australian Submarine Corporation and this is the defence minister who is happy to come into question time in our Senate and undermine confidence in Australia's naval capability.
He is a disgrace. He is a utter disgrace. This is a man who is in charge of a multibillion-dollar project who has jeopardised the fair and equitable conduct of that procurement process. Does anyone believe after his performance that this minister will make a fair and unbiased decision when it comes to the future submarines project?
No-one in Australia believes that, no-one in this Senate believes that. Not even your South Australian colleagues behind you or in fact your Cabinet colleagues believe that.
Labor's Stephen Conroy yells:
Bring back Arthur!
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 9.53am AEST
block-time published-time 9.40am AEST
Johnston says he did not mean to offend on subs
David Johnston has just made a statement on indulgence in the senate, saying he did not mean to cause offence.
I wish to make a short statement to the Senate regarding ASC and Australian shipbuilding.
All Australian's have come to know well the frustrations successive Governments faced in fielding a world class submarine capability. And today we are in the middle of a $8 billion program to build three Air Warfare Destroyers. We have all faced challenges. This can not be denied.
The frustrations of successive Governments with the performance of both the Collins Class sustainment and the AWD program are well documented.
In 2011, Labor Defence Minister Stephen Smith expressed his own concerns on the sustainment of Collins. He said:
"Without having confidence in our capacity to sustain our current fleet of submarines, it is very difficult to fully commence, other than through initial planning, the acquisition program for our Future Submarine."
(ASPI presentation, 19/7/2011)
I am committed to leading the effort to fix our problems. And regrettably, in rhetorical flourish, I did express my frustrations in the past performance of ASC. In these comments I never intended to cause offence and I regret that offence may have been taken.
And I of course was directing my remarks at a legacy of issues and not the workers in ASC whom I consider to be world class.
And on the matter at hand, the Government has not made any decisions on the future submarine. Decisions will be made as I have said time and again on the advice of our Service Chiefs.
Our goal is to deliver to our Navy a new class of submarine that is superior to Collins, before the planned withdrawal date of the Collins class. Given the sheer scale of submarine programs, it is only by working together as a team that we will reach this goal.
The former Government's submarine program was costed at over $40 billion by Defence and would have resulted in a capability gap. This is an unacceptable risk to our $1.6 trillion economy.
Whatever decision is made on the future submarine, there will be more jobs for South Australia and a more capable Navy for Australians.
Thank you Mr President and I thank the indulgence of the Senate.
block-time published-time 9.30am AEST
Stuart Robert's argument in defending Johnston revolves around the general budgetary argument that Labor cut defence spending and the Coalition has increased defence spending.
So apparently you don't need to worry about the minister's performance.
Robert says Johnston has been "very open and honest".
Australia's sub capability gap was caused because Labor made "zero" decisions on the contracts, says Robert.
block-time published-time 9.28am AEST
Tony Burke is going through the past sins of the defence minister David Johnston.
He says the defence minister has been on radio "saying to Australia and to the world, please don't take me seriously". Burke says Christopher Pyne was late to the house because he was on radio, refusing to defend Johnston this morning.
He must be starting a petition.
Of all the jobs where... you would think someone needs backing in, it would be the defence minister.
Burke reminds the house that when Johnston was asked at a recent senate estimates hearing why he hadn't attended the National Secuity Committee, the minister said:
I wasn't going to add much.
Stuart Robert, the assistant minister for defence, has been given the worst job in government today. Defending David Johnston.
block-time published-time 9.21am AEST
Now Labor's Tony Burke is having a go. Expect him to be guillotined shortly.
block-time published-time 9.20am AEST
The house just guillotined the David Johnston debate 79-49.
Here is the full Johnston from Adelaide ABC. A bit like the full Monty.
Q: David Johnston ... what possessed you to say that you wouldn't trust the ASC to build a canoe?
Well, David, frustration I think but look, that was a rhetorical flourish that I don't want to be taken literally but the fact is I am very frustrated. What has happened is ... the Labor Party has hidden the truth with respect to that air warfare destroyer program from us. It's in a bad shape but we are fixing it ... as I sit here talking to you now there are some green shoots which I'm very pleased to say that I'm starting to see
... ( Bevan: But your attack was not on so much on the Labor Party in making that comment, your attack was on the ASC and the workers there ... either the ASC is incredibly incompetent or you are?)
It was not an attack on the workers ... let's get that straight. The workers have done a very good job down there and may I say that this is an extremely complex program. The air warfare destroyer program is the most complex program Australia's ever undertaken. Yes, we are probably half a billion dollars over budget and two years late, yes there were two attempts to remediate that program by the previous Government, both of which failed.
The Minister in charge of the Australian Submarine Corporation of course was Penny Wong ... she is the one who is responsible for this and you're quite right ... what I should have said was the Labor Party could not be trusted to build a canoe because it was their responsibility and she takes no responsibility.
block-time published-time 9.14am AEST
Here is another wonderful mashup on the plight of the government re the ABC and budget problem generally. But it makes a nice metaphor, particularly for the Python fans amongst us.
block-time published-time 9.12am AEST
The parliament is voting on the guillotine now but obviously the government has the numbers to win.
block-time published-time 9.12am AEST
The government has just guillotined debate on defence minister Johnston.
block-time published-time 9.11am AEST
Parliament is sitting and there is immediately an argument because a government minister was not ready when the bell rang. Speaker Bishop is saying "no biggie". She is telling the house yesterday's behaviour was a "disgrace".
Then Bill Shorten is straight into a suspension of standing orders to censure the defence minister and call on Tony Abbott to sack David Johnston.
Bill Shorten:
The parliament notes the defence minister promised on 8 May 2013 that a Coalition would deliver submarines built in South Australia.
With his comments that ASC couldn't "build a canoe", Johnston insulted the highly skilled workers at ASC.
He calls on the prime minister to attend the house and confirm why he hasn't asked David Johnston to withdraw his remarks
He calls on the PM to sack the minister for defence.
Shorten says Johnston has shown chronic under-performance since he started as defence minister.
block-time published-time 9.03am AEST
A helpful reader Jimmy sent us this:
@gabriellechanpic.twitter.com/VPApa3jkGO
- #Jimmy (@choox75) November 25, 2014
block-time published-time 9.00am AEST
Up shit creek? Here's your paddle.S
Independent South Australian Senator Nick Xenophon awaits his turn in front of the cameras complete with his "paddle". Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
South Australian senator and resident stuntmeister Nick Xenophon has been out early defending his state and the Australian Submarine Corporation from the defence minister David Johnston.
He baldly stated: "The government is up shit creek without a paddle". So he brought one in. Apparently he is no paddler, so he had to source the paddle from a Canberra club.
Already Johnston and other government members have been out defending his comments as:
rhetorical flourish.
But the feeling in parliament is that when Tony Abbott said he had to scrape a few barnacles off the ship, he was thinking of his defence minister. And though Johnston's self inflicted wound came after Abbott's barnacle comment, if he did not have the minister in mind at the party room speech, he most certainly will now.
block-time published-time 8.50am AEST
Good morning all,
It is Wednesday, and Wednesday being what it is, especially in a sitting week, there is some peak political blather coming your way.
There is a lot on the news agenda already this morning.
The defence minister David Johnston is under extreme pressure for attacking the government-owned Australian Submarine Corporation. Johnston, whose performance was already in question, said he wouldn't "trust the ASC to build a canoe". Tony Abbott rushed out with a statement to defend the ASC, rather than his minister.
Which is not great timing, given this is the guy in charge of the defence forces. His attention will be divided, as also today we are expecting the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce report into sexual abuse in the ADF as well as another report into the cases of abuse at the Australian Defence Force Academy historically.
Jacqui Lambie is still waiting to talk to the prime minister about the defence force pay issue. She has been out already this morning, waving her arms, reminding the PM that she is still waiting.
A same sex marriage private bill is also expected in the senate, with a neat wedge issue delivered to the Abbott government by Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm.
Bill Shorten is speaking to the National Press Club. On standby for #peakzinger.
Clive Palmer is in court with two Chinese companies who are suing him over using $12m to fund the Palmer United Party election campaign.
I think that's enough to keep you going before your morning beverage. Mike Bowers has more #LegoSenate for you today, so follow him @mpbowers or me @gabrielle chan on the Twits.
Tony Abbott: David Johnston has my full confidence - as it happened Tony Abbott under pressure to drop the defence minister David Johnston after the prime minister was forced to defend the Australian Submarine Company, while Jacqui Lambie expects a deal on defence pay. Follow it live... false theguardian.com true http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/11/26/1416978028089/4a8e8c5d-3ccd-41cd-be3a-4aab57d04998-140x84.jpeg 8460 true 452607965 false 5474f0efe4b0111029b679d9 false Gabrielle Chan false 2198955 AUS false 2014-11-29T08:45:00+11:00
LOAD-DATE: November 26, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
212 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 26, 2014 Wednesday 5:41 AM GMT
block-time published-time 4.41pm AEST South;
Abbott under pressure to drop the defence minister, David Johnston, after the PM was forced to defend the Australian Submarine Company, while Jacqui Lambie expects a deal on defence pay. Follow it live...
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 7924 words
block-time published-time 4.41pm AEST
South Australian minister Martin Hamilton-Smith, former Liberal and now independent, has urged the federal government to get state government, industry and unions in a room, lock the door and work it out.
block-time published-time 4.34pm AEST
In the senate, it is Eric Abetz ' turn to defend Johnston. He reprimands Labor for moving "flippant" censure motions.
Assistant defence minister Stuart Robert is speaking to David Speers at Sky right now on the government position.
Absolutely we trust ASC.
block-time published-time 4.05pm AEST
Stephen Conroy turns his attack towards Christopher Pyne, an Adelaide MP, who this morning said Johnston should not have made the remarks. Conroy says Pyne has said nothing to defend the Adelaide-based company ASC for six months.
I welcome the fact that Mr Pyne has grown a spine.
Julie Bishop, he says, simply said she accepted the defence minister's statement.
SA minister Jamie Briggs, he says, called the comments wrong.
His own colleagues have abandoned him, says Conroy. No friends on his frontbench or his backbench.
Put your vote where your mouth is, says Conroy. Stand up for your state.
block-time published-time 3.59pm AEST
Stephen Conroy up now, saying his comments:
undermine national security.
Conroy says John Howard told Tony Abbott not to put David Johnston in the defence ministry. Had Abbott taken the "wise advice" of John Howard, the government would not be in the position.
block-time published-time 3.55pm AEST
David Johnston is still speaking with great calm, I might say. He doesn't seem worried by the reaction.
For my sins I have worn the odium of two hours this morning.
He says the men who are doing the welding and fit outs at ASC are doing a good job, its the management that is the problem.
block-time published-time 3.53pm AEST
Back to Bill Shorten, who gave a personal explanation in the lower house after question time in response to Abbott's accusation of xenophobia over the possibility of a Japanese contractor for submarines.
Shorten said he said no such thing and that he supported ASC.
Here is what Shorten said to a rally in Adelaide on the issue.
For goodness sake, Tony Abbott, buy a map of the world...We are an island, Tony Abbott, and our navy matters...This is a government with a short memory...In the Second World War, 366 merchant ships were sunk off Australia.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 3.53pm AEST
block-time published-time 3.43pm AEST
We saw promises, doorstops, no decisions and no action by Kevin Rudd, says Johnston.
The Defence minister David Johnston during question time. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 3.40pm AEST
David Johnston says Labor had SAS pay adjusted and SAS troops serving in the field received debt letters from the government.
The comparison is off the planet.
Johnston said the only threat to the future submarine program was the exercise in "fooling the Australian public" by Labor.
You set out to pretend you were building 12 submarines.
So here we are in 2014, and I have had to start from scratch.
block-time published-time 3.37pm AEST
David Johnston is on his feet defending himself yet again.
He says the greatest insult he has ever seen was when Julia Gillard sent a bodyguard to the National Security Committee.
You were the greatest underminers in Australia's defence capabilities in the six and a half years you were there.
block-time published-time 3.33pm AEST
At least the censure motion has brought old friends together in the senate. Though we can't show you the real photo, Jacqui Lambie has talked to Glenn Lazarus for the first time since the rift. By the way, that's Ricky Muir on the other side of Jacqui.
Jacqui Lambie talks to Glenn Lazarus #BrickSenate@murpharoo@gabriellechan@GuardianAushttp://t.co/dxZxKbj6NBpic.twitter.com/7dTRrjSW7U
- Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) November 26, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 3.34pm AEST
block-time published-time 3.31pm AEST
Penny Wong accuses Johnston and the government of demonising ASC to justify breaking the promise to build the subs in Adelaide.
That is a fundamentally dishonourable thing to do.
The government is abandoning the shipbuilding industry in Adelaide.
block-time published-time 3.26pm AEST
Labor censure motion of David Johnston
The Labor motion in the senate is thus:
I move that the Senate censures the Minister for Defence (Senator Johnston) for:
1) Insulting the men and women of ASC by stating he "wouldn't trust them to build a canoe";
2) Undermining confidence in Australia's defence capability;
3) Threatening the integrity of the Future Submarine Project, Australia's largest defence procurement, by demonstrating bias and failing to conduct a competitive tender;
4) Breaking his promise made on 8 May 2013 to build 12 new submarines at ASC in South Australia; and
5) Cutting the real pay, Christmas and recreation leave for Australian Defence Force personnel.
Penny Wong says with his comments, Johnston has compromised the procurement process for future submarine contracts. Billions of dollars and thousands of jobs are involved.
block-time published-time 3.24pm AEST
In the lower house, Labor is also prosecuting the same case against David Johnston in a matter of public importance. They failed to get a censure motion up earlier today. The MPI is "The Prime Minister's refusal to sack the Minister for Defence".
block-time published-time 3.22pm AEST
So South Australian senator Bob Day did not support a move to allow a censure debate, notwithstanding Johnston's comments about a large company and industry in his state.
block-time published-time 3.19pm AEST
Vote goes 39 to 33, which means Labor now moves its motion to censure defence minister David Johnston. Penny Wong will now argue the case.
block-time published-time 3.15pm AEST
Labor gets the votes of the Greens, Lazarus, Wang, Lambie, Muir, Madigan.
The government only gets Day and Leyonhjelm.
No sign of Xenophon.
The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Penny Wong during question time. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 3.12pm AEST
Senate now dividing on the motion to suspend standing orders. Which way will the crossbenchers go?
block-time published-time 3.11pm AEST
Christopher Pyne defends the speaker against Burke and Bowen.
It was full of argument, inference, imputation, insults, ironical expressions and you ruled it out quite correctly, says Pyne.
block-time published-time 3.10pm AEST
In the house, Labor's Tony Burke asks Abbott : who came up with the strategy of lying about lying and how do you reckon it's going?
Speaker Bishop rules it offensive and out of order. Burke rephrases. Speaker Bishop is still offended and gives the question away. Burke just got punted for impertinance.
block-time published-time 3.08pm AEST
George Brandis is again defending Johnston, whom he called the finest defence minister of recent times. He calls the comments "exuberance".
So you know, government members have also called the comments:
Rhetorical flourish
Overstatement in question time
Slip of the tongue
block-time published-time 3.06pm AEST
Labor's Stephen Conroy has just posited that given The Australian opinion writers have suggested Johnston has to go.
You know what happens when the Australian says you are in the way of the government. You have to scrape the barnacle off the bottom and move on.
block-time published-time 3.00pm AEST
Labor and Greens try to censure Johnston
Christine Milne says the Greens will support Labor's suspension of standing orders to debate censure of David Johnston.
We should have a debate on the confidence of the minister.
She says Johnston has showed he doesn't have the capacity to deal with the procurement in defence.
block-time published-time 2.55pm AEST
Eric Abetz answers the motion to suspend standing orders.
This motion is about getting a very capable defence minister who in opposition saw the demise of a Labor defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon.
Even Johnston laughs and looks down, slightly embarrassed.
Abetz calls Johnston's remarks that "he would not trust ASC to build a canoe" an
overstatement in question time.
block-time published-time 2.51pm AEST
Wong to Johnston, will the minister undertake to build 12 news subs at ASC in Adelaide?
Warrior Penny Wong on her feet in the #BrickSenate. Photograph by Mike Bowers. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
The one important ingredient missing from (Wong's) case is truth.
Johnston refuses to answer.
Warrior Wong moves a suspension of standing orders in the senate to censure David Johnston.
It is untenable for him to continue in the ministry of defence.
Liberal senator Ian Macdonald tries to intervene but is sat down.
Most people would say this is a legitimate matter for debate, given the debate in Australia in the past 24 hours, says Wong. She says his comments effectively knocked out one of the bidders in the tender process.
block-time published-time 2.44pm AEST
David Leyonhjelm asks about the Renewable Energy Target and whether the RET was an achievable target.
Mathias Cormann says they are taking advice on it at the moment.
This is about Leyonhjelm and the government's deal to rewrite the RET as foreshadowed in this story by Lenore Taylor.
Leyonhjelm again asks about spiralling power prices and whether the government will work with the crossbench on reform.
We will work with everyone, says Cormann because we want to ensure Australian manufacturing remains competitive.
block-time published-time 2.37pm AEST
In the house, Shorten to Abbott : I refer to reports back today that the PM scraping off barnacles. Which barnacle will the PM scrape off today? His disaster of a defence minister or his disaster of a GP tax?
I reckon what we need to lose is Barnacle Bill! Let 's get rid of Barnacle Bill, says Abbott.
block-time published-time 2.35pm AEST
In the senate, David Johnston said he sat down with the chair of ASC to work out the problems between the government and the company and "for my trouble, I don't think I got very far".
(Digging deeper.)
He says he did not criticise the workers.
Johnston is asked again at his remarks.
It may have been that I got over involved in the issues.
Back on to union slush funds and the registered organisations bill.
block-time published-time 2.31pm AEST
Labor is asking Tony Abbott again if he will sack Johnston given he has overseen a cut in real wages to the ADF?
The Government is proposing a 1.5% increase for members of our Defence Forces. So the premise of the member's question is simply false. Simply false. Simply false. So, Madam Speaker, if members opposite want to have a proper debate in this House, they should deal with facts, not fiction. I've concluded my answer.
Sounds like the PM has not grappled with the concept of real wages.
block-time published-time 2.27pm AEST
The man of the moment.
The Defence minister David Johnston during question time. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 2.26pm AEST
In the senate, the government is reprising the former Labor MP Craig Thomson's case. Thomson has been in court this week. Eric Abetz is outlining that there is more than "one bad apple" in the trade union movement. In the lower house, Christopher Pyne and justice minister Michael Keenan are talking about corruption in the construction industry, primarily the CFMEU.
block-time published-time 2.24pm AEST
Abbott is asked by Adam Bandt if he can visit Victoria.
With less than 72 hours until people start voting in Saturday's Victorian election, will the PM please spend as much time in Melbourne as possible? Will the PM explain his Liberal Government's vision for a society where wind turbines don't get built, money is cut from public education and public transport gets nothing at all.
Abbott does not take a backward step.
I'm very happy to give the member my vision for Victoria and for Melbourne. My vision for Melbourne is a Melbourne with East West Link built. That is my vision for Melbourne. My vision for Victoria is a state that's run by the premier, not by the leader of the CFMEU, that's what my vision is for Melbourne.
block-time published-time 2.20pm AEST
Abbott has also said defence minister Johnston does not deserve his treatment.
This minister does not deserve to be undermined by members opposite... just because of a slip of the tongue in the senate yesterday
block-time published-time 2.18pm AEST
Abbott on Shorten :
The Leader of the Opposition went to the ASC and he said that the last thing Australia should ever happen is a Japanese submarine. That is what he said because remember World War II! That is exactly what he said. He was kind of like a reverse John Cleese, that's what he was. Remember the war.
block-time published-time 2.17pm AEST
Tony Abbott accuses Shorten of xenophobia
Tony Abbott has just accused Bill Shorten of not wanting a Japanese company to build submarines because of WWII. He accuses Shorten of xenophobia "when he has his union leaders' hat on".
The Leader of the opposition says that we could have submarines as long as they have nothing to do with Japan because of what happened in World War II
block-time published-time 2.15pm AEST
David Johnston said Labor's charge of bias towards a Japanese submarine company, away from the ASC, is completely unfounded.
I actually don't make the decision, it is such a large contract so it will go to the National Security Committee. The government makes the decision, says Johnston.
Defence minister Johnston "I took my medicine for about an hour this morning" #QT@gabriellechan@GuardianAuspic.twitter.com/mchKUS3xfi
- Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) November 26, 2014
block-time published-time 2.11pm AEST
Cory Bernardi asks David Johnston to outline why the ASC contracts were so behind, following the management of former Gillard minister Penny Wong.
Cory Bernardi in the #BrickSenate. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
It's about the ASC's previous contract on the Air Warfare Destroyers.
So the government is mounting a defence of defence minister. Johnston is even getting the Dixer questions in the senate, maintaining him in the public eye.
block-time published-time 2.06pm AEST
Johnston said one of the principal reasons for my contrition is because SA Liberal leader Steven Marshall criticised him.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 2.14pm AEST
block-time published-time 2.05pm AEST
Tony Abbott says David Johnston has "my full confidence".
Sounds like Johnston is safe for now.
block-time published-time 2.04pm AEST
In the lower house, Abbott says Johnston is doing a great job.
The minister for defence is doing an outstanding job, absolutely outstanding job., following six years of neglect by members opposite, says Abbott.
block-time published-time 2.02pm AEST
In senate question time, Penny Wong asks David Johnston to explain why he should not resign.
Johnston says:
I took my medicine.
Johnston agrees he said the wrong thing and he regrets it.
block-time published-time 2.00pm AEST
David Johnston has responded to the defence task force
I recognise that considerable work remains to be done. Further support is required for those who have contacted the task force. The government is determined to ensure that the task force terms of reference be fully and independently discharged. Therefore, while the task force was due to conclude on 30 November this year, the government has decided to extend the task force with a view to bringing its important work to a timely and appropriate conclusion.
block-time published-time 1.55pm AEST
Question time coming up people. We are expecting a lot of action in the senate. It's going to be hard to cover both the senate and the house of reps but we will do our best. Here are the senators limbering up.
Senate Chamber #BrickSenate Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 1.25pm AEST
Bill Shorten is asked about the budget and what should be dropped in the face of budget problem. How should Joe Hockey handle it? Shorten predicts the government may drop higher education deregulation as one of the "barnacles" Tony Abbott said he would remove.
Well the first thing is he should just go down to Bunnings, not Bunnings, go to Kmart or Target, buy himself a white tea towel, put it on a wooden broom and wave surrender on his silly changes.
block-time published-time 1.18pm AEST
Shorten is asked about Labor's idea of fairness and how it equates with asylum seeker policy, where Labor has moved to the right.
I believe that Labor's push for regional resettlement has been the cornerstone upon which the people smugglers' model has been broken. In terms of this government and what they're doing in terms of their temporary visas, we need to look at the detail carefully.
And fairness?
block-time published-time 1.14pm AEST
A number of questions have been asked pushing Bill Shorten to acknowledge the mistakes Labor made in government. He vaguely mentions not being brave enough on climate change.
there's no doubt and we've taken responsibility for various matters over the last year and a quarter. But we missed an opportunity in 2009 with the collapse of Copenhagen and in hindsight, I'm not saying I had this view at the time but in hindsight, and hindsight is an invaluable tool, we've all used it, is we should have pushed for a double dissolution and there is no doubt that Tony Abbott ran a very effective campaign against the high fixed price on carbon that we put in that term. So yeah, I get that we need to rebuild trust.
block-time published-time 1.10pm AEST
Mike Bowers, meantime, is having too much fun.
Heffernan- I withdraw Mr President that Senator Conroy is a blockhead #BrickSenate@gabriellechan@GuardianAuspic.twitter.com/d4xJtzXfcT
- Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) November 26, 2014
block-time published-time 1.05pm AEST
Finally Shorten addresses Labor's reputation from the previous government:
I recognise that Labor has to rebuild the nation's faith in us. We are are determined to earn the trust of the Australian people. We will earn their trust and we will repay their trust. Today I give Australians this commitment. We will seek a mandate based on a positive plan. We will not ask the Australian people to vote for us just because we are not the Abbott Government.
That final line a direct nod to the last election.
block-time published-time 1.02pm AEST
Bill Shorten at the Press Club:
For people on lower earning careers, like teaching, nursing and community work, and for women in particular, Christopher Pyne is playing loan shark. Today it takes a woman social worker around 9 years to pay off her degree. Under Tony Abbott's changes she would never pay back her total HECS bill.
block-time published-time 1.00pm AEST
Bill Shorten prosecutes the case against the Coalition's budget while moving onto the Labor agenda.
Labor would have signed up to the China-led Asian Infrastructure Bank, which Abbott has declined until the rules change.
Shorten says if Australia is to competing in the "new world order" governments have to create jobs in a global economy. Shorten again pushes his higher education priority, in contrast to the government's higher education deregulation, which will increase university fees.
A lifetime of student debt is not a reform.
block-time published-time 12.50pm AEST
Bill Shorten says Abbott was "blind-sided" by China and the US on climate change and described as a "flat-earther" by Tories in Britain.
The PM was lost in space. While real world events were moving around him. Remember, even the hyped up shirt front with President Putin turned into a butterfly kiss. The uncompromising words were left to Germany's Angela Merkel and Canada's Stephen Harper while our PM settled for a photo with Putin nursing a couple of bewildered koalas. The ignominy of it. And it wasn't just President Obama's inspirational speech or his decisive actions alongside President Xi that threw Tony Abbott's stubborn reactionism into sharp relief. Soon the Tories in Britain were calling him a flat-earther. Japan and Canada announced their substantial contributions to the green climate fund, an institution which our bewildered PM has previously dismissed as socialism masquerading as environmentalism.
block-time published-time 12.45pm AEST
Bill Shorten raised the G20 speech:
On that Saturday morning in eight excruciating minutes, the PM delivered a weird, cringe-worthy, little Australia lecture to the global community...There he was, boasting about taking Australia backwards on climate change. There he was bemoaning the massively difficult job he has as Australian PM, whining about the unpopularity of his GP tax and his plan for $100,000 degrees. And presenting live to the world a negative character reference of his own people, the Australian public, blaming them, our people, for his government's failures. Damning our country as selfish, anti-modern, anti-reform, anti-change.
block-time published-time 12.42pm AEST
Bill Shorten has said Tony Abbott is not suitable to be Australia's prime minister. He has outlined the G20 events, including Abbott's speech to world leaders on his domestic agenda.
On every issue the same problem - no vision, no plan, no trust. Tony Abbott has no vision for foreign policy, for Australia's foreign policy future or our economic future. And he is deliberately and wilfully deepening the trust deficit, ignoring the wishes and the wisdom of the Australian people.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.42pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.39pm AEST
Lunch time political summary
David Johnston has said his comments on the Australian Submarine Corporation were not meant to offend but expressed frustration at its past performance. Labor tried to censure Johnston but failed on numbers.
A report into sexual abuse in the defence force has recommended a royal commission.
The senate continues to debate the counter terrorism bill which would share intelligence between the security agencies and the defence forces.
The Speaker Bronwyn Bishop has introduced a bill to beef up parliamentary security.
block-time published-time 12.33pm AEST
While the senate goes through its various amendments on counter terrorism, which will not pass as Labor is supporting, Bill Shorten is about to speak at the National Press Club.
block-time published-time 12.21pm AEST
Meanwhile Senator Bill Heffernan provides a little plain English.
Senator Heffernan "I withdraw Mr President that senator Conroy is a boofhead" @gabriellechan@GuardianAuspic.twitter.com/Ud48Lgqlmx
- Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) November 26, 2014
block-time published-time 12.05pm AEST
George Brandis is speaking to his counter terrorism legislation in the senate. There has been an interesting argument this morning enunciated by Brandis around counter terrorism and the paradigm of the debate on national security.
It carves out the difference between suspecting a terrorist act in order to stop a crime before it happens as opposed to providing enough evidence to prove a terrorist act, after the event.
It goes to some of the debate in Britain around the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby by terrorists on the street outside his barracks and the issue of whether the crime could have been prevented.
The trouble with the counter terrorism debate, says Brandis, is that many groups, including the Greens are arguing about the laws to stop terrorism in a "criminal law paradigm" where an event has already occurred. These laws are to stop terrorism before the event.
Brandis to Penny Wright:
I understand you have a philosophical objection to control orders themselves but we are not debating the broad point now, we are debating the narrow point.
Within the control order regime, ought there be a capacity if all other conditions are satisfied, ought there be a jurisdiction to issue a control order, where to do so would substantially assist in preventing the provision or support for or the facilitation of a terrorist act.
Instead what you and your Green people would have us do is provide an order where a person HAD provided support for a terrorist act...
If there is enough evidence to show a person has provided support for or has committed a terrorist act, well you wouldnt be issuying a control order, you would be issuing an arrrest warrent....
Once the terrorist act has occurred, it's too late. That's why we have to move out of this criminal law paradigm to think that this is about punishment for offences that have been committed.
The purposes of counter terrorism policy and counter terrorism law is to provide the apparatus to interdict so as to prevent the occurrence of a terrorism act and control orders, judiciously hedged by the many safeguards with which they are hedged, are a very important part of that apparatus.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.15pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.35am AEST
George Brandis strong defence of David Johnston provides a momentary paddle.
George Brandis defends David Johnston in the senate. #BrickSenate Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
(Independent senator Nick Xenophon said Johnston's comments regarding the Australian Submarine Corporation landed the defence minister up the creek without a paddle.)
block-time published-time 11.30am AEST
The senate is now back onto the counter terror laws, that is the amendment that allows Asis to share intelligence with the defence forces and for the extension of control orders. Penny Wright has raised George Brandis' refusal to answer questions in the committee stage of debate yesterday.
He flat-out refused to answer legitimate questions about the Bill - sitting in the Senate wilfully ignoring me - without the courtesy to even explain the basis on which answers were being refused. I was asking these questions on behalf of all those who do not have the opportunity: legal experts, human rights organisations, civil liberties groups and those at the forefront of national security policy.
Wright said while some changes had been made to allay fears on the bill, not enough had been done.
And yet Senator Brandis could not even find it within himself to give me - and by extension, the Australian public - the courtesy of a response.
Brandis says he wants to stick to the substance of the bill rather than the senate processes.
I don't want to have a meta debate. I don't want to have a debate about a debate.
block-time published-time 11.16am AEST
A slip of the tongue, says Brandis.
George Brandis in full flight, defending David Johnston. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 11.09am AEST
During the procedural votes over censures of David Johnston and Malcolm Turnbull, there was a little tete a tete between Anthony Albanese and Christopher Pyne - two of sharpest parliamentary operators in the house.
Pyne, as leader of the house, was getting to the end of his tether even though it was only 10am in the morning. He yelled:
Grow up you losers.
We could not pick up Albanese's reply.
Shadow for Infrastructure Anthony Albanese and the Leader of the House Christopher Pyne exchange pleasantries. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 11.02am AEST
Seantor David Leyonhjelm has revealed more on his Freedom to Marry bill, allowing same sex marriage bill. Here is a soundbite from his speech to the senate last night. Note he has not yet introduced the bill.
Those arguments fall under three heads: liberty, conscience and state power. I turn first to liberty. To most people, marriage equality means the right to get married irrespective of gender or sexual preference. But it is much more than that; it is the right to live your life as you choose and not have the government impose a particular view on you.
Daniel Hurst has a story here on the bill.
The bill, which Leyonhjelm will not bring to a vote until he has the numbers, makes a very simple change.
It changes the word "man" and "woman" to "2 people". It also provides a counterpoint by allowing civil celebrants to refuse to marry on the grounds of conscience. This is a power religious ministers already have.
block-time published-time 10.51am AEST
The senate debate regarding David Johnston continues, with attorney general George Brandis defending the minister. He - and Abetz before him - raise the occasion when Labor's Stephen Conroy attacked General Angus Campbell in senate estimates.
That was over the Coalition's asylum seeker policy was under attack and Conroy essentially accused Campbell of being involved in a political cover up.
A rather peeved Brandis describes Campbell as:
A better man than senator Conroy will ever be.
He quotes Campbell's reply to Conroy, describing his "extreme offence" at the statement.
To the eternal "disgrace and shame" of senator Conroy, he never apologised to Campbell, says Brandis. Conroy, "the alternative defence minister".
When my friend the defence minister made a slip of the tongue...
Then Brandis goes into reports that Julia Gillard sent her bodyguard to the national security committee.
block-time published-time 10.38am AEST
Helen Davidson has done a first take on the report into sexual abuse in the defence force.
The federal government must hold a royal commission into allegations of abuse during the entire history of the Australian Defence Force training academy (Adfa), an investigative taskforce has recommended.
The defence minister, David Johnston, tabled two reports by the defence abuse response taskforce (Dart) to parliament on Wednesday.
The first covered allegations and instances of abuse within the ADF over several decades, while the second looks more specifically at cases at Adfa.
In justifying its call for a royal commission into Adfa, Dart said the ADF was unable to adequately deal with the cases itself as so much time had passed since they occurred or were reported.
"The taskforce has concluded that the only way of ensuring confidence that the allegations of very serious abuse at Adfa can be thoroughly and completely investigated - and appropriately dealt with - is by way of a royal commission," said the chairman of the taskforce, Len Roberts-Smith QC.
It will be interesting to see if the government, which began its life quickly establishing two royal commissions (into home insulations and trade unions ), accepts the recommendation for a sexual abuse royal commission.
block-time published-time 10.26am AEST
Here's Eric Abetz defending David Johnston.
Eric. Abetz defends defence minister David Johnston @GuardianAus@gabriellechanhttp://t.co/dxZxKbj6NBpic.twitter.com/TFBK80gW6V
- Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) November 25, 2014
block-time published-time 10.24am AEST
I would like to correct myself on a procedural matter brought to my attention by a thoughtful rodent.
Re politics live blog @gabriellechan@GuardianAus only bills are guillotined. Motions are gagged. That's right @AuSenate ? #proceduralnerdery
- Rat (@ThoughtfulRat) November 25, 2014
I have checked and that is right so I will amend my language from now on. If you are going to knock something off, it is very important to note whether it is guillotined or gagged. There may be a cartoon in that.
block-time published-time 10.16am AEST
Parliamentary security bill
Speaker Bishop is making a statement to the house on security around parliament house. She is introducing the parliamentary service amendment bill 2014. It will:
enable a representative of Australian Federal Police to be security management board of parliament.
amend the remit of the board to allow it to provide advice to presiding officers (Speaker and President) on the management or operation of security.
Labor's Tony Burke says they have been briefed on the bill but have not seen the detail. He says while Labor agrees in principle, he would like to see the bill before going straight into a debate.
Speaker Bishop agrees to adjourn the debate.
Burkas were not mentioned.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.17am AEST
block-time published-time 10.12am AEST
Eric Abetz has just given a full dissertation on what a fantastic job defence minister David Johnston has been doing. He countered Labor's attack with the arguments that:
a) Labor had cut the defence budget.
b) we are all human.
c) leave him alone.
block-time published-time 10.04am AEST
The house is now going through a series of procedural votes on the Turnbull suspension, guillotining, putting questions, moving motions.
block-time published-time 10.03am AEST
Liberal member gets punted.
The Liberal member for Bass Andrew Nickolic is evicted from the chamber. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 10.01am AEST
This is the Labor motion on Malcolm Turnbull.
1. Notes that:
(a) on Monday 24 November 2014, the Prime Minister stated to the House: "We are applying an efficiency dividend to the ABC"; and
(b) the next day, the Minister for Communications directly contradicted the Prime Minister's statement in the House by stating on Sky News, "It is not an efficiency dividend," and again, "This is not an efficiency dividend"; and
Censures the Prime Minister for deliberately misleading:
(a) the Parliament;
(b) the Australian people when he promised on the night before the last election that there would be "No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST, and no cuts to the ABC or SBS"; and
(c) the Australian people when he said, "It is an absolute principle of democracy that governments should not and must not say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards."
Government has guillotined debate.
Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen during a lively opening session as the opposition tried to suspend standing orders in Parliament. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 9.56am AEST
The house is now censuring Malcolm Turnbull on the ABC/SBS. Government has guillotined debate again. Labor's Jason Clare gets less than a sentence out before Christopher Pyne shuts him down.
block-time published-time 9.53am AEST
This is the Labor motion censuring David Johnston that was guillotined in the house first thing.
That the House:
Notes that the Minister for Defence;
(a) Promised on 8 May 2013 that the Coalition "will deliver those submarines from right here at ASC in South Australia. The Coalition today is committed to building 12 new submarines here in Adelaide.", and then broke that promise worth $20 billion; and
(b) Cut the real pay, Christmas and recreation leave for Australia's Defence men and women; and
(c) Insulted the highly skilled and dedicated workers at ASC on 25 November 2014 by saying he 'did not trust them to build a canoe'.
Calls on the Prime Minister to immediately attend the House and confirm:
(a) why he has failed to direct the Minister for Defence to withdraw his insulting remarks; and
(b) whether he retains full confidence in the Minister for Defence.
Should the Prime Minister fail to attend the House, that the House:
(a) condemns the Prime Minister for his failure to stand up for Australia's defence personnel;
(b) calls on the Prime Minister to sack the Minister for Defence.
Debate was shut down.
block-time published-time 9.50am AEST
Labor have characterised Tony Abbott's statement backing ASC as "cutting loose" David Johnston.
It was remiss not to bring you Abbott's comments earlier.
Whilst ASC has had challenges meeting the government's cost and schedule expectations of the Air Warfare Destroyer program, we are working closely with ASC on a reform strategy to improve shipyard performance and productivity. It is early days, but the government is confident that ASC and its partners will successfully turn the corner on this important build.
block-time published-time 9.45am AEST
South Australian Senator Penny Wong has answered Johnston is a fiery speech.
Well, senators that was the minister for defence. This is the gentleman who is supposed to be in charge of our defence personnel who wants us to forgive him and all workers in our ship building industry to forgive him because it was a regrettable rhetorical flourish.
Let us understand this Defence Minister's behaviour. This Defence Minister's behaviour, this is the man who has broken his election promise to build 12 submarines in Adelaide.
This is a man who has trashed the reputation of a major defence industry firm. This is a man who has insulted thousand of hard working Australians employed at the Australian Submarine Corporation and this is the defence minister who is happy to come into question time in our Senate and undermine confidence in Australia's naval capability.
He is a disgrace. He is a utter disgrace. This is a man who is in charge of a multibillion-dollar project who has jeopardised the fair and equitable conduct of that procurement process. Does anyone believe after his performance that this minister will make a fair and unbiased decision when it comes to the future submarines project?
No-one in Australia believes that, no-one in this Senate believes that. Not even your South Australian colleagues behind you or in fact your Cabinet colleagues believe that.
Labor's Stephen Conroy yells:
Bring back Arthur!
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 9.53am AEST
block-time published-time 9.40am AEST
Johnston says he did not mean to offend on subs
David Johnston has just made a statement on indulgence in the senate, saying he did not mean to cause offence.
I wish to make a short statement to the Senate regarding ASC and Australian shipbuilding.
All Australian's have come to know well the frustrations successive Governments faced in fielding a world class submarine capability. And today we are in the middle of a $8 billion program to build three Air Warfare Destroyers. We have all faced challenges. This can not be denied.
The frustrations of successive Governments with the performance of both the Collins Class sustainment and the AWD program are well documented.
In 2011, Labor Defence Minister Stephen Smith expressed his own concerns on the sustainment of Collins. He said:
"Without having confidence in our capacity to sustain our current fleet of submarines, it is very difficult to fully commence, other than through initial planning, the acquisition program for our Future Submarine."
(ASPI presentation, 19/7/2011)
I am committed to leading the effort to fix our problems. And regrettably, in rhetorical flourish, I did express my frustrations in the past performance of ASC. In these comments I never intended to cause offence and I regret that offence may have been taken.
And I of course was directing my remarks at a legacy of issues and not the workers in ASC whom I consider to be world class.
And on the matter at hand, the Government has not made any decisions on the future submarine. Decisions will be made as I have said time and again on the advice of our Service Chiefs.
Our goal is to deliver to our Navy a new class of submarine that is superior to Collins, before the planned withdrawal date of the Collins class. Given the sheer scale of submarine programs, it is only by working together as a team that we will reach this goal.
The former Government's submarine program was costed at over $40 billion by Defence and would have resulted in a capability gap. This is an unacceptable risk to our $1.6 trillion economy.
Whatever decision is made on the future submarine, there will be more jobs for South Australia and a more capable Navy for Australians.
Thank you Mr President and I thank the indulgence of the Senate.
block-time published-time 9.30am AEST
Stuart Robert's argument in defending Johnston revolves around the general budgetary argument that Labor cut defence spending and the Coalition has increased defence spending.
So apparently you don't need to worry about the minister's performance.
Robert says Johnston has been "very open and honest".
Australia's sub capability gap was caused because Labor made "zero" decisions on the contracts, says Robert.
block-time published-time 9.28am AEST
Tony Burke is going through the past sins of the defence minister David Johnston.
He says the defence minister has been on radio "saying to Australia and to the world, please don't take me seriously". Burke says Christopher Pyne was late to the house because he was on radio, refusing to defend Johnston this morning.
He must be starting a petition.
Of all the jobs where... you would think someone needs backing in, it would be the defence minister.
Burke reminds the house that when Johnston was asked at a recent senate estimates hearing why he hadn't attended the National Secuity Committee, the minister said:
I wasn't going to add much.
Stuart Robert, the assistant minister for defence, has been given the worst job in government today. Defending David Johnston.
block-time published-time 9.21am AEST
Now Labor's Tony Burke is having a go. Expect him to be guillotined shortly.
block-time published-time 9.20am AEST
The house just guillotined the David Johnston debate 79-49.
Here is the full Johnston from Adelaide ABC. A bit like the full Monty.
Q: David Johnston ... what possessed you to say that you wouldn't trust the ASC to build a canoe?
Well, David, frustration I think but look, that was a rhetorical flourish that I don't want to be taken literally but the fact is I am very frustrated. What has happened is ... the Labor Party has hidden the truth with respect to that air warfare destroyer program from us. It's in a bad shape but we are fixing it ... as I sit here talking to you now there are some green shoots which I'm very pleased to say that I'm starting to see
... ( Bevan: But your attack was not on so much on the Labor Party in making that comment, your attack was on the ASC and the workers there ... either the ASC is incredibly incompetent or you are?)
It was not an attack on the workers ... let's get that straight. The workers have done a very good job down there and may I say that this is an extremely complex program. The air warfare destroyer program is the most complex program Australia's ever undertaken. Yes, we are probably half a billion dollars over budget and two years late, yes there were two attempts to remediate that program by the previous Government, both of which failed.
The Minister in charge of the Australian Submarine Corporation of course was Penny Wong ... she is the one who is responsible for this and you're quite right ... what I should have said was the Labor Party could not be trusted to build a canoe because it was their responsibility and she takes no responsibility.
block-time published-time 9.14am AEST
Here is another wonderful mashup on the plight of the government re the ABC and budget problem generally. But it makes a nice metaphor, particularly for the Python fans amongst us.
block-time published-time 9.12am AEST
The parliament is voting on the guillotine now but obviously the government has the numbers to win.
block-time published-time 9.12am AEST
The government has just guillotined debate on defence minister Johnston.
block-time published-time 9.11am AEST
Parliament is sitting and there is immediately an argument because a government minister was not ready when the bell rang. Speaker Bishop is saying "no biggie". She is telling the house yesterday's behaviour was a "disgrace".
Then Bill Shorten is straight into a suspension of standing orders to censure the defence minister and call on Tony Abbott to sack David Johnston.
Bill Shorten:
The parliament notes the defence minister promised on 8 May 2013 that a Coalition would deliver submarines built in South Australia.
With his comments that ASC couldn't "build a canoe", Johnston insulted the highly skilled workers at ASC.
He calls on the prime minister to attend the house and confirm why he hasn't asked David Johnston to withdraw his remarks
He calls on the PM to sack the minister for defence.
Shorten says Johnston has shown chronic under-performance since he started as defence minister.
block-time published-time 9.03am AEST
A helpful reader Jimmy sent us this:
@gabriellechanpic.twitter.com/VPApa3jkGO
- #Jimmy (@choox75) November 25, 2014
block-time published-time 9.00am AEST
Up shit creek? Here's your paddle.S
Independent South Australian Senator Nick Xenophon awaits his turn in front of the cameras complete with his "paddle". Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
South Australian senator and resident stuntmeister Nick Xenophon has been out early defending his state and the Australian Submarine Corporation from the defence minister David Johnston.
He baldly stated: "The government is up shit creek without a paddle". So he brought one in. Apparently he is no paddler, so he had to source the paddle from a Canberra club.
Already Johnston and other government members have been out defending his comments as:
rhetorical flourish.
But the feeling in parliament is that when Tony Abbott said he had to scrape a few barnacles off the ship, he was thinking of his defence minister. And though Johnston's self inflicted wound came after Abbott's barnacle comment, if he did not have the minister in mind at the party room speech, he most certainly will now.
block-time published-time 8.50am AEST
Good morning all,
It is Wednesday, and Wednesday being what it is, especially in a sitting week, there is some peak political blather coming your way.
There is a lot on the news agenda already this morning.
The defence minister David Johnston is under extreme pressure for attacking the government-owned Australian Submarine Corporation. Johnston, whose performance was already in question, said he wouldn't "trust the ASC to build a canoe". Tony Abbott rushed out with a statement to defend the ASC, rather than his minister.
Which is not great timing, given this is the guy in charge of the defence forces. His attention will be divided, as also today we are expecting the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce report into sexual abuse in the ADF as well as another report into the cases of abuse at the Australian Defence Force Academy historically.
Jacqui Lambie is still waiting to talk to the prime minister about the defence force pay issue. She has been out already this morning, waving her arms, reminding the PM that she is still waiting.
A same sex marriage private bill is also expected in the senate, with a neat wedge issue delivered to the Abbott government by Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm.
Bill Shorten is speaking to the National Press Club. On standby for #peakzinger.
Clive Palmer is in court with two Chinese companies who are suing him over using $12m to fund the Palmer United Party election campaign.
I think that's enough to keep you going before your morning beverage. Mike Bowers has more #LegoSenate for you today, so follow him @mpbowers or me @gabrielle chan on the Twits.
Tony Abbott: David Johnston has my full confidence - question time live Tony Abbott under pressure to drop the defence minister David Johnston after the prime minister was forced to defend the Australian Submarine Company, while Jacqui Lambie expects a deal on defence pay. Follow it live... false theguardian.com true http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/11/26/1416978028089/4a8e8c5d-3ccd-41cd-be3a-4aab57d04998-140x84.jpeg 7396 true 452607965 false 5474f0efe4b0111029b679d9 false Gabrielle Chan false 2198955 AUS true 2014-11-29T08:45:00+11:00
LOAD-DATE: November 26, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
213 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 26, 2014 Wednesday 5:30 AM GMT
Geoengineering could offer solution of last resort against climate change;
Despite 'terrifying' risks of geoengineering, the urgent nature of climate change means research must continue into the controversial technology, say scientists
BYLINE: Damian Carrington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 959 words
Fighting global warming by reflecting sunlight back into space risks "terrifying" consequences including droughts and conflicts, according to three major new analyses of the promise and perils of geoengineering. But research into deliberately interfering with the climate system must continue in search of technology to use as a last resort in combating climate change, scientists have concluded.
Billions of people would suffer worse floods and droughts if technology was used to block warming sunlight, the research found. Technology that sucks carbon dioxide from the air was less risky, the analysis concluded, but will take many more decades to develop and take effect.
The carbon emissions that cause climate change are continuing to rise and, without sharp cuts, the world is set for " severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts ". This has led some to propose geoengineering but others have warned that unforeseen impacts of global-scale action to try to counteract warming could make the situation worse.
Matthew Watson, at the University of Bristol, who led one of the studies in the £5m research programme, said: "We are sleepwalking to a disaster with climate change. Cutting emissions is undoubtedly the thing we should be focusing on but it seems to be failing. Although geoengineering is terrifying to many people, and I include myself in this, [its feasibility and safety] are questions that have to be answered,"
Watson led the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (Spice) project, which abandoned controversial attempts to test spraying droplets into the atmosphere from a balloon in 2012. But he said on Wednesday: "We will have to go outside eventually. There are just some things you cannot do in the lab."
Prof Steve Rayner, at the University of Oxford and who led the Climate Geoengineering Governance project, said the research showed geoengineering was "neither a magic bullet nor a Pandora's box".
But he said global security would be threatened unless an international treaty was agreed to oversee any sun-blocking projects. "For example, if India had put sulphate particles into the stratosphere, even as a test, two years before the recent floods in Pakistan, no one would ever persuade Pakistan that that had not caused the floods."
The researchers examined two types of geoengineering, solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Prof Piers Forster, at the University of Leeds, led a project using in-computer models to assess six types of SRM. All reduced temperatures but all also worsened floods or droughts for 25%-65% of the global population, compared to the expected impact of climate change:
mimicking a volcano by spraying sulphate particles high into the atmosphere to block sunlight adversely affected 2.8bn people
spraying salt water above the oceans to whiten low clouds and reflect sunlight adversely affected 3bn people
thinning high cirrus clouds to allow more heat to escape Earth adversely affected 2.4bn people
generating microbubbles on the ocean surface to whiten it and reflect more sunlight adversely affected 2bn people
covering all deserts in shiny material adversely affected 4.1bn people
growing shinier crops adversely affected 1.4bn people
The adverse effect on rainfall results from changed differences in temperature between the oceans and land, which disrupts atmospheric circulation, particularly the monsoons over the very populous nations in SE Asia. Nonetheless, Forster said: "Because the [climate change] situation is so urgent, we do have to investigate the possibilities of geoengineering."
Rayner said SRM could probably be done within two decades, but was difficult to govern and the side effects would be damaging. He noted that SRM does not remove carbon from the air, so only masks climate change. "People decry doing SRM as a band aid, but band aids are useful when you are healing," he said.
In contrast, CDR tackles the root of the climate change problem by taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, would be much easier to govern and would have relatively few side effects. But Rayner said it will take multiple decades to develop CDR technologies and decades more for the CO2 reductions to produce a cooling effect. "You are going to have to build an industry to reverse engineer 200 years of fossil fuel industry, and on the same huge scale," he said.
The recent landmark report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), signed off by 194 governments, placed strong emphasis on a potential technology called bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) as a way to pull CO2 from the atmosphere. It would involve burning plants and trees, which grow by taking CO2 from the air, in power plants and then capturing the CO2 exhaust and burying it underground.
"But if you are going to do BECCS, you are going to have to grow an awful lot of trees and the impact on land use may have very significant effects on food security," said Rayner. He added that the potential costs of both SRM or CDR were very high and, if the costs of damaging side effects were included, looked much more expensive than cutting carbon emissions at source.
Both Watson and Rayner said the international goal of keeping warming below the "dangerous" level of 2C would only be possible with some form of geoengineering and that research into such technology should continue.
"If we found any [geoengineering] technology was safe, affordable and effective that could be part of a toolkit we could use to combat climate change," said Rayner.
"If we ever deploy SRM in anger it will be the clearest indication yet that we have failed as planetary guardians," said Watson. "It [would be] a watershed, fundamentally changing the way 7bn people interact with the world."
LOAD-DATE: November 26, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
214 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 26, 2014 Wednesday 5:05 AM GMT
block-time published-time 4.05pm AEST Stephen;
Abbott under pressure to drop the defence minister, David Johnston, after the PM was forced to defend the Australian Submarine Company, while Jacqui Lambie expects a deal on defence pay. Follow it live...
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 7835 words
block-time published-time 4.05pm AEST
Stephen Conroy turns his attack towards Christopher Pyne, an Adelaide MP, who this morning said Johnston should not have made the remarks. Conroy says Pyne has said nothing to defend the Adelaide-based company ASC for six months.
I welcome the fact that Mr Pyne has grown a spine.
Julie Bishop, he says, simply said she accepted the defence minister's statement.
SA minister Jamie Briggs, he says, called the comments wrong.
His own colleagues have abandoned him, says Conroy. No friends on his frontbench or his backbench.
Put your vote where your mouth is, says Conroy. Stand up for your state.
block-time published-time 3.59pm AEST
Stephen Conroy up now, saying his comments:
undermine national security.
Conroy says John Howard told Tony Abbott not to put David Johnston in the defence ministry. Had Abbott taken the "wise advice" of John Howard, the government would not be in the position.
block-time published-time 3.55pm AEST
David Johnston is still speaking with great calm, I might say. He doesn't seem worried by the reaction.
For my sins I have worn the odium of two hours this morning.
He says the men who are doing the welding and fit outs at ASC are doing a good job, its the management that is the problem.
block-time published-time 3.53pm AEST
Back to Bill Shorten, who gave a personal explanation in the lower house after question time in response to Abbott's accusation of xenophobia over the possibility of a Japanese contractor for submarines.
Shorten said he said no such thing and that he supported ASC.
Here is what Shorten said to a rally in Adelaide on the issue.
For goodness sake, Tony Abbott, buy a map of the world...We are an island, Tony Abbott, and our navy matters...This is a government with a short memory...In the Second World War, 366 merchant ships were sunk off Australia.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 3.53pm AEST
block-time published-time 3.43pm AEST
We saw promises, doorstops, no decisions and no action by Kevin Rudd, says Johnston.
The Defence minister David Johnston during question time. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 3.40pm AEST
David Johnston says Labor had SAS pay adjusted and SAS troops serving in the field received debt letters from the government.
The comparison is off the planet.
Johnston said the only threat to the future submarine program was the exercise in "fooling the Australian public" by Labor.
You set out to pretend you were building 12 submarines.
So here we are in 2014, and I have had to start from scratch.
block-time published-time 3.37pm AEST
David Johnston is on his feet defending himself yet again.
He says the greatest insult he has ever seen was when Julia Gillard sent a bodyguard to the National Security Committee.
You were the greatest underminers in Australia's defence capabilities in the six and a half years you were there.
block-time published-time 3.33pm AEST
At least the censure motion has brought old friends together in the senate. Though we can't show you the real photo, Jacqui Lambie has talked to Glenn Lazarus for the first time since the rift. By the way, that's Ricky Muir on the other side of Jacqui.
Jacqui Lambie talks to Glenn Lazarus #BrickSenate@murpharoo@gabriellechan@GuardianAushttp://t.co/dxZxKbj6NBpic.twitter.com/7dTRrjSW7U
- Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) November 26, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 3.34pm AEST
block-time published-time 3.31pm AEST
Penny Wong accuses Johnston and the government of demonising ASC to justify breaking the promise to build the subs in Adelaide.
That is a fundamentally dishonourable thing to do.
The government is abandoning the shipbuilding industry in Adelaide.
block-time published-time 3.26pm AEST
Labor censure motion of David Johnston
The Labor motion in the senate is thus:
I move that the Senate censures the Minister for Defence (Senator Johnston) for:
1) Insulting the men and women of ASC by stating he "wouldn't trust them to build a canoe";
2) Undermining confidence in Australia's defence capability;
3) Threatening the integrity of the Future Submarine Project, Australia's largest defence procurement, by demonstrating bias and failing to conduct a competitive tender;
4) Breaking his promise made on 8 May 2013 to build 12 new submarines at ASC in South Australia; and
5) Cutting the real pay, Christmas and recreation leave for Australian Defence Force personnel.
Penny Wong says with his comments, Johnston has compromised the procurement process for future submarine contracts. Billions of dollars and thousands of jobs are involved.
block-time published-time 3.24pm AEST
In the lower house, Labor is also prosecuting the same case against David Johnston in a matter of public importance. They failed to get a censure motion up earlier today. The MPI is "The Prime Minister's refusal to sack the Minister for Defence".
block-time published-time 3.22pm AEST
So South Australian senator Bob Day did not support a move to allow a censure debate, notwithstanding Johnston's comments about a large company and industry in his state.
block-time published-time 3.19pm AEST
Vote goes 39 to 33, which means Labor now moves its motion to censure defence minister David Johnston. Penny Wong will now argue the case.
block-time published-time 3.15pm AEST
Labor gets the votes of the Greens, Lazarus, Wang, Lambie, Muir, Madigan.
The government only gets Day and Leyonhjelm.
No sign of Xenophon.
The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Penny Wong during question time. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 3.12pm AEST
Senate now dividing on the motion to suspend standing orders. Which way will the crossbenchers go?
block-time published-time 3.11pm AEST
Christopher Pyne defends the speaker against Burke and Bowen.
It was full of argument, inference, imputation, insults, ironical expressions and you ruled it out quite correctly, says Pyne.
block-time published-time 3.10pm AEST
In the house, Labor's Tony Burke asks Abbott : who came up with the strategy of lying about lying and how do you reckon it's going?
Speaker Bishop rules it offensive and out of order. Burke rephrases. Speaker Bishop is still offended and gives the question away. Burke just got punted for impertinance.
block-time published-time 3.08pm AEST
George Brandis is again defending Johnston, whom he called the finest defence minister of recent times. He calls the comments "exuberance".
So you know, government members have also called the comments:
Rhetorical flourish
Overstatement in question time
Slip of the tongue
block-time published-time 3.06pm AEST
Labor's Stephen Conroy has just posited that given The Australian opinion writers have suggested Johnston has to go.
You know what happens when the Australian says you are in the way of the government. You have to scrape the barnacle off the bottom and move on.
block-time published-time 3.00pm AEST
Labor and Greens try to censure Johnston
Christine Milne says the Greens will support Labor's suspension of standing orders to debate censure of David Johnston.
We should have a debate on the confidence of the minister.
She says Johnston has showed he doesn't have the capacity to deal with the procurement in defence.
block-time published-time 2.55pm AEST
Eric Abetz answers the motion to suspend standing orders.
This motion is about getting a very capable defence minister who in opposition saw the demise of a Labor defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon.
Even Johnston laughs and looks down, slightly embarrassed.
Abetz calls Johnston's remarks that "he would not trust ASC to build a canoe" an
overstatement in question time.
block-time published-time 2.51pm AEST
Wong to Johnston, will the minister undertake to build 12 news subs at ASC in Adelaide?
Warrior Penny Wong on her feet in the #BrickSenate. Photograph by Mike Bowers. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
The one important ingredient missing from (Wong's) case is truth.
Johnston refuses to answer.
Warrior Wong moves a suspension of standing orders in the senate to censure David Johnston.
It is untenable for him to continue in the ministry of defence.
Liberal senator Ian Macdonald tries to intervene but is sat down.
Most people would say this is a legitimate matter for debate, given the debate in Australia in the past 24 hours, says Wong. She says his comments effectively knocked out one of the bidders in the tender process.
block-time published-time 2.44pm AEST
David Leyonhjelm asks about the Renewable Energy Target and whether the RET was an achievable target.
Mathias Cormann says they are taking advice on it at the moment.
This is about Leyonhjelm and the government's deal to rewrite the RET as foreshadowed in this story by Lenore Taylor.
Leyonhjelm again asks about spiralling power prices and whether the government will work with the crossbench on reform.
We will work with everyone, says Cormann because we want to ensure Australian manufacturing remains competitive.
block-time published-time 2.37pm AEST
In the house, Shorten to Abbott : I refer to reports back today that the PM scraping off barnacles. Which barnacle will the PM scrape off today? His disaster of a defence minister or his disaster of a GP tax?
I reckon what we need to lose is Barnacle Bill! Let 's get rid of Barnacle Bill, says Abbott.
block-time published-time 2.35pm AEST
In the senate, David Johnston said he sat down with the chair of ASC to work out the problems between the government and the company and "for my trouble, I don't think I got very far".
(Digging deeper.)
He says he did not criticise the workers.
Johnston is asked again at his remarks.
It may have been that I got over involved in the issues.
Back on to union slush funds and the registered organisations bill.
block-time published-time 2.31pm AEST
Labor is asking Tony Abbott again if he will sack Johnston given he has overseen a cut in real wages to the ADF?
The Government is proposing a 1.5% increase for members of our Defence Forces. So the premise of the member's question is simply false. Simply false. Simply false. So, Madam Speaker, if members opposite want to have a proper debate in this House, they should deal with facts, not fiction. I've concluded my answer.
Sounds like the PM has not grappled with the concept of real wages.
block-time published-time 2.27pm AEST
The man of the moment.
The Defence minister David Johnston during question time. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 2.26pm AEST
In the senate, the government is reprising the former Labor MP Craig Thomson's case. Thomson has been in court this week. Eric Abetz is outlining that there is more than "one bad apple" in the trade union movement. In the lower house, Christopher Pyne and justice minister Michael Keenan are talking about corruption in the construction industry, primarily the CFMEU.
block-time published-time 2.24pm AEST
Abbott is asked by Adam Bandt if he can visit Victoria.
With less than 72 hours until people start voting in Saturday's Victorian election, will the PM please spend as much time in Melbourne as possible? Will the PM explain his Liberal Government's vision for a society where wind turbines don't get built, money is cut from public education and public transport gets nothing at all.
Abbott does not take a backward step.
I'm very happy to give the member my vision for Victoria and for Melbourne. My vision for Melbourne is a Melbourne with East West Link built. That is my vision for Melbourne. My vision for Victoria is a state that's run by the premier, not by the leader of the CFMEU, that's what my vision is for Melbourne.
block-time published-time 2.20pm AEST
Abbott has also said defence minister Johnston does not deserve his treatment.
This minister does not deserve to be undermined by members opposite... just because of a slip of the tongue in the senate yesterday
block-time published-time 2.18pm AEST
Abbott on Shorten :
The Leader of the Opposition went to the ASC and he said that the last thing Australia should ever happen is a Japanese submarine. That is what he said because remember World War II! That is exactly what he said. He was kind of like a reverse John Cleese, that's what he was. Remember the war.
block-time published-time 2.17pm AEST
Tony Abbott accuses Shorten of xenophobia
Tony Abbott has just accused Bill Shorten of not wanting a Japanese company to build submarines because of WWII. He accuses Shorten of xenophobia "when he has his union leaders' hat on".
The Leader of the opposition says that we could have submarines as long as they have nothing to do with Japan because of what happened in World War II
block-time published-time 2.15pm AEST
David Johnston said Labor's charge of bias towards a Japanese submarine company, away from the ASC, is completely unfounded.
I actually don't make the decision, it is such a large contract so it will go to the National Security Committee. The government makes the decision, says Johnston.
Defence minister Johnston "I took my medicine for about an hour this morning" #QT@gabriellechan@GuardianAuspic.twitter.com/mchKUS3xfi
- Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) November 26, 2014
block-time published-time 2.11pm AEST
Cory Bernardi asks David Johnston to outline why the ASC contracts were so behind, following the management of former Gillard minister Penny Wong.
Cory Bernardi in the #BrickSenate. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
It's about the ASC's previous contract on the Air Warfare Destroyers.
So the government is mounting a defence of defence minister. Johnston is even getting the Dixer questions in the senate, maintaining him in the public eye.
block-time published-time 2.06pm AEST
Johnston said one of the principal reasons for my contrition is because SA Liberal leader Steven Marshall criticised him.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 2.14pm AEST
block-time published-time 2.05pm AEST
Tony Abbott says David Johnston has "my full confidence".
Sounds like Johnston is safe for now.
block-time published-time 2.04pm AEST
In the lower house, Abbott says Johnston is doing a great job.
The minister for defence is doing an outstanding job, absolutely outstanding job., following six years of neglect by members opposite, says Abbott.
block-time published-time 2.02pm AEST
In senate question time, Penny Wong asks David Johnston to explain why he should not resign.
Johnston says:
I took my medicine.
Johnston agrees he said the wrong thing and he regrets it.
block-time published-time 2.00pm AEST
David Johnston has responded to the defence task force
I recognise that considerable work remains to be done. Further support is required for those who have contacted the task force. The government is determined to ensure that the task force terms of reference be fully and independently discharged. Therefore, while the task force was due to conclude on 30 November this year, the government has decided to extend the task force with a view to bringing its important work to a timely and appropriate conclusion.
block-time published-time 1.55pm AEST
Question time coming up people. We are expecting a lot of action in the senate. It's going to be hard to cover both the senate and the house of reps but we will do our best. Here are the senators limbering up.
Senate Chamber #BrickSenate Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 1.25pm AEST
Bill Shorten is asked about the budget and what should be dropped in the face of budget problem. How should Joe Hockey handle it? Shorten predicts the government may drop higher education deregulation as one of the "barnacles" Tony Abbott said he would remove.
Well the first thing is he should just go down to Bunnings, not Bunnings, go to Kmart or Target, buy himself a white tea towel, put it on a wooden broom and wave surrender on his silly changes.
block-time published-time 1.18pm AEST
Shorten is asked about Labor's idea of fairness and how it equates with asylum seeker policy, where Labor has moved to the right.
I believe that Labor's push for regional resettlement has been the cornerstone upon which the people smugglers' model has been broken. In terms of this government and what they're doing in terms of their temporary visas, we need to look at the detail carefully.
And fairness?
block-time published-time 1.14pm AEST
A number of questions have been asked pushing Bill Shorten to acknowledge the mistakes Labor made in government. He vaguely mentions not being brave enough on climate change.
there's no doubt and we've taken responsibility for various matters over the last year and a quarter. But we missed an opportunity in 2009 with the collapse of Copenhagen and in hindsight, I'm not saying I had this view at the time but in hindsight, and hindsight is an invaluable tool, we've all used it, is we should have pushed for a double dissolution and there is no doubt that Tony Abbott ran a very effective campaign against the high fixed price on carbon that we put in that term. So yeah, I get that we need to rebuild trust.
block-time published-time 1.10pm AEST
Mike Bowers, meantime, is having too much fun.
Heffernan- I withdraw Mr President that Senator Conroy is a blockhead #BrickSenate@gabriellechan@GuardianAuspic.twitter.com/d4xJtzXfcT
- Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) November 26, 2014
block-time published-time 1.05pm AEST
Finally Shorten addresses Labor's reputation from the previous government:
I recognise that Labor has to rebuild the nation's faith in us. We are are determined to earn the trust of the Australian people. We will earn their trust and we will repay their trust. Today I give Australians this commitment. We will seek a mandate based on a positive plan. We will not ask the Australian people to vote for us just because we are not the Abbott Government.
That final line a direct nod to the last election.
block-time published-time 1.02pm AEST
Bill Shorten at the Press Club:
For people on lower earning careers, like teaching, nursing and community work, and for women in particular, Christopher Pyne is playing loan shark. Today it takes a woman social worker around 9 years to pay off her degree. Under Tony Abbott's changes she would never pay back her total HECS bill.
block-time published-time 1.00pm AEST
Bill Shorten prosecutes the case against the Coalition's budget while moving onto the Labor agenda.
Labor would have signed up to the China-led Asian Infrastructure Bank, which Abbott has declined until the rules change.
Shorten says if Australia is to competing in the "new world order" governments have to create jobs in a global economy. Shorten again pushes his higher education priority, in contrast to the government's higher education deregulation, which will increase university fees.
A lifetime of student debt is not a reform.
block-time published-time 12.50pm AEST
Bill Shorten says Abbott was "blind-sided" by China and the US on climate change and described as a "flat-earther" by Tories in Britain.
The PM was lost in space. While real world events were moving around him. Remember, even the hyped up shirt front with President Putin turned into a butterfly kiss. The uncompromising words were left to Germany's Angela Merkel and Canada's Stephen Harper while our PM settled for a photo with Putin nursing a couple of bewildered koalas. The ignominy of it. And it wasn't just President Obama's inspirational speech or his decisive actions alongside President Xi that threw Tony Abbott's stubborn reactionism into sharp relief. Soon the Tories in Britain were calling him a flat-earther. Japan and Canada announced their substantial contributions to the green climate fund, an institution which our bewildered PM has previously dismissed as socialism masquerading as environmentalism.
block-time published-time 12.45pm AEST
Bill Shorten raised the G20 speech:
On that Saturday morning in eight excruciating minutes, the PM delivered a weird, cringe-worthy, little Australia lecture to the global community...There he was, boasting about taking Australia backwards on climate change. There he was bemoaning the massively difficult job he has as Australian PM, whining about the unpopularity of his GP tax and his plan for $100,000 degrees. And presenting live to the world a negative character reference of his own people, the Australian public, blaming them, our people, for his government's failures. Damning our country as selfish, anti-modern, anti-reform, anti-change.
block-time published-time 12.42pm AEST
Bill Shorten has said Tony Abbott is not suitable to be Australia's prime minister. He has outlined the G20 events, including Abbott's speech to world leaders on his domestic agenda.
On every issue the same problem - no vision, no plan, no trust. Tony Abbott has no vision for foreign policy, for Australia's foreign policy future or our economic future. And he is deliberately and wilfully deepening the trust deficit, ignoring the wishes and the wisdom of the Australian people.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.42pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.39pm AEST
Lunch time political summary
David Johnston has said his comments on the Australian Submarine Corporation were not meant to offend but expressed frustration at its past performance. Labor tried to censure Johnston but failed on numbers.
A report into sexual abuse in the defence force has recommended a royal commission.
The senate continues to debate the counter terrorism bill which would share intelligence between the security agencies and the defence forces.
The Speaker Bronwyn Bishop has introduced a bill to beef up parliamentary security.
block-time published-time 12.33pm AEST
While the senate goes through its various amendments on counter terrorism, which will not pass as Labor is supporting, Bill Shorten is about to speak at the National Press Club.
block-time published-time 12.21pm AEST
Meanwhile Senator Bill Heffernan provides a little plain English.
Senator Heffernan "I withdraw Mr President that senator Conroy is a boofhead" @gabriellechan@GuardianAuspic.twitter.com/Ud48Lgqlmx
- Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) November 26, 2014
block-time published-time 12.05pm AEST
George Brandis is speaking to his counter terrorism legislation in the senate. There has been an interesting argument this morning enunciated by Brandis around counter terrorism and the paradigm of the debate on national security.
It carves out the difference between suspecting a terrorist act in order to stop a crime before it happens as opposed to providing enough evidence to prove a terrorist act, after the event.
It goes to some of the debate in Britain around the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby by terrorists on the street outside his barracks and the issue of whether the crime could have been prevented.
The trouble with the counter terrorism debate, says Brandis, is that many groups, including the Greens are arguing about the laws to stop terrorism in a "criminal law paradigm" where an event has already occurred. These laws are to stop terrorism before the event.
Brandis to Penny Wright:
I understand you have a philosophical objection to control orders themselves but we are not debating the broad point now, we are debating the narrow point.
Within the control order regime, ought there be a capacity if all other conditions are satisfied, ought there be a jurisdiction to issue a control order, where to do so would substantially assist in preventing the provision or support for or the facilitation of a terrorist act.
Instead what you and your Green people would have us do is provide an order where a person HAD provided support for a terrorist act...
If there is enough evidence to show a person has provided support for or has committed a terrorist act, well you wouldnt be issuying a control order, you would be issuing an arrrest warrent....
Once the terrorist act has occurred, it's too late. That's why we have to move out of this criminal law paradigm to think that this is about punishment for offences that have been committed.
The purposes of counter terrorism policy and counter terrorism law is to provide the apparatus to interdict so as to prevent the occurrence of a terrorism act and control orders, judiciously hedged by the many safeguards with which they are hedged, are a very important part of that apparatus.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.15pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.35am AEST
George Brandis strong defence of David Johnston provides a momentary paddle.
George Brandis defends David Johnston in the senate. #BrickSenate Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
(Independent senator Nick Xenophon said Johnston's comments regarding the Australian Submarine Corporation landed the defence minister up the creek without a paddle.)
block-time published-time 11.30am AEST
The senate is now back onto the counter terror laws, that is the amendment that allows Asis to share intelligence with the defence forces and for the extension of control orders. Penny Wright has raised George Brandis' refusal to answer questions in the committee stage of debate yesterday.
He flat-out refused to answer legitimate questions about the Bill - sitting in the Senate wilfully ignoring me - without the courtesy to even explain the basis on which answers were being refused. I was asking these questions on behalf of all those who do not have the opportunity: legal experts, human rights organisations, civil liberties groups and those at the forefront of national security policy.
Wright said while some changes had been made to allay fears on the bill, not enough had been done.
And yet Senator Brandis could not even find it within himself to give me - and by extension, the Australian public - the courtesy of a response.
Brandis says he wants to stick to the substance of the bill rather than the senate processes.
I don't want to have a meta debate. I don't want to have a debate about a debate.
block-time published-time 11.16am AEST
A slip of the tongue, says Brandis.
George Brandis in full flight, defending David Johnston. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 11.09am AEST
During the procedural votes over censures of David Johnston and Malcolm Turnbull, there was a little tete a tete between Anthony Albanese and Christopher Pyne - two of sharpest parliamentary operators in the house.
Pyne, as leader of the house, was getting to the end of his tether even though it was only 10am in the morning. He yelled:
Grow up you losers.
We could not pick up Albanese's reply.
Shadow for Infrastructure Anthony Albanese and the Leader of the House Christopher Pyne exchange pleasantries. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 11.02am AEST
Seantor David Leyonhjelm has revealed more on his Freedom to Marry bill, allowing same sex marriage bill. Here is a soundbite from his speech to the senate last night. Note he has not yet introduced the bill.
Those arguments fall under three heads: liberty, conscience and state power. I turn first to liberty. To most people, marriage equality means the right to get married irrespective of gender or sexual preference. But it is much more than that; it is the right to live your life as you choose and not have the government impose a particular view on you.
Daniel Hurst has a story here on the bill.
The bill, which Leyonhjelm will not bring to a vote until he has the numbers, makes a very simple change.
It changes the word "man" and "woman" to "2 people". It also provides a counterpoint by allowing civil celebrants to refuse to marry on the grounds of conscience. This is a power religious ministers already have.
block-time published-time 10.51am AEST
The senate debate regarding David Johnston continues, with attorney general George Brandis defending the minister. He - and Abetz before him - raise the occasion when Labor's Stephen Conroy attacked General Angus Campbell in senate estimates.
That was over the Coalition's asylum seeker policy was under attack and Conroy essentially accused Campbell of being involved in a political cover up.
A rather peeved Brandis describes Campbell as:
A better man than senator Conroy will ever be.
He quotes Campbell's reply to Conroy, describing his "extreme offence" at the statement.
To the eternal "disgrace and shame" of senator Conroy, he never apologised to Campbell, says Brandis. Conroy, "the alternative defence minister".
When my friend the defence minister made a slip of the tongue...
Then Brandis goes into reports that Julia Gillard sent her bodyguard to the national security committee.
block-time published-time 10.38am AEST
Helen Davidson has done a first take on the report into sexual abuse in the defence force.
The federal government must hold a royal commission into allegations of abuse during the entire history of the Australian Defence Force training academy (Adfa), an investigative taskforce has recommended.
The defence minister, David Johnston, tabled two reports by the defence abuse response taskforce (Dart) to parliament on Wednesday.
The first covered allegations and instances of abuse within the ADF over several decades, while the second looks more specifically at cases at Adfa.
In justifying its call for a royal commission into Adfa, Dart said the ADF was unable to adequately deal with the cases itself as so much time had passed since they occurred or were reported.
"The taskforce has concluded that the only way of ensuring confidence that the allegations of very serious abuse at Adfa can be thoroughly and completely investigated - and appropriately dealt with - is by way of a royal commission," said the chairman of the taskforce, Len Roberts-Smith QC.
It will be interesting to see if the government, which began its life quickly establishing two royal commissions (into home insulations and trade unions ), accepts the recommendation for a sexual abuse royal commission.
block-time published-time 10.26am AEST
Here's Eric Abetz defending David Johnston.
Eric. Abetz defends defence minister David Johnston @GuardianAus@gabriellechanhttp://t.co/dxZxKbj6NBpic.twitter.com/TFBK80gW6V
- Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) November 25, 2014
block-time published-time 10.24am AEST
I would like to correct myself on a procedural matter brought to my attention by a thoughtful rodent.
Re politics live blog @gabriellechan@GuardianAus only bills are guillotined. Motions are gagged. That's right @AuSenate ? #proceduralnerdery
- Rat (@ThoughtfulRat) November 25, 2014
I have checked and that is right so I will amend my language from now on. If you are going to knock something off, it is very important to note whether it is guillotined or gagged. There may be a cartoon in that.
block-time published-time 10.16am AEST
Parliamentary security bill
Speaker Bishop is making a statement to the house on security around parliament house. She is introducing the parliamentary service amendment bill 2014. It will:
enable a representative of Australian Federal Police to be security management board of parliament.
amend the remit of the board to allow it to provide advice to presiding officers (Speaker and President) on the management or operation of security.
Labor's Tony Burke says they have been briefed on the bill but have not seen the detail. He says while Labor agrees in principle, he would like to see the bill before going straight into a debate.
Speaker Bishop agrees to adjourn the debate.
Burkas were not mentioned.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.17am AEST
block-time published-time 10.12am AEST
Eric Abetz has just given a full dissertation on what a fantastic job defence minister David Johnston has been doing. He countered Labor's attack with the arguments that:
a) Labor had cut the defence budget.
b) we are all human.
c) leave him alone.
block-time published-time 10.04am AEST
The house is now going through a series of procedural votes on the Turnbull suspension, guillotining, putting questions, moving motions.
block-time published-time 10.03am AEST
Liberal member gets punted.
The Liberal member for Bass Andrew Nickolic is evicted from the chamber. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 10.01am AEST
This is the Labor motion on Malcolm Turnbull.
1. Notes that:
(a) on Monday 24 November 2014, the Prime Minister stated to the House: "We are applying an efficiency dividend to the ABC"; and
(b) the next day, the Minister for Communications directly contradicted the Prime Minister's statement in the House by stating on Sky News, "It is not an efficiency dividend," and again, "This is not an efficiency dividend"; and
Censures the Prime Minister for deliberately misleading:
(a) the Parliament;
(b) the Australian people when he promised on the night before the last election that there would be "No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST, and no cuts to the ABC or SBS"; and
(c) the Australian people when he said, "It is an absolute principle of democracy that governments should not and must not say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards."
Government has guillotined debate.
Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen during a lively opening session as the opposition tried to suspend standing orders in Parliament. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 9.56am AEST
The house is now censuring Malcolm Turnbull on the ABC/SBS. Government has guillotined debate again. Labor's Jason Clare gets less than a sentence out before Christopher Pyne shuts him down.
block-time published-time 9.53am AEST
This is the Labor motion censuring David Johnston that was guillotined in the house first thing.
That the House:
Notes that the Minister for Defence;
(a) Promised on 8 May 2013 that the Coalition "will deliver those submarines from right here at ASC in South Australia. The Coalition today is committed to building 12 new submarines here in Adelaide.", and then broke that promise worth $20 billion; and
(b) Cut the real pay, Christmas and recreation leave for Australia's Defence men and women; and
(c) Insulted the highly skilled and dedicated workers at ASC on 25 November 2014 by saying he 'did not trust them to build a canoe'.
Calls on the Prime Minister to immediately attend the House and confirm:
(a) why he has failed to direct the Minister for Defence to withdraw his insulting remarks; and
(b) whether he retains full confidence in the Minister for Defence.
Should the Prime Minister fail to attend the House, that the House:
(a) condemns the Prime Minister for his failure to stand up for Australia's defence personnel;
(b) calls on the Prime Minister to sack the Minister for Defence.
Debate was shut down.
block-time published-time 9.50am AEST
Labor have characterised Tony Abbott's statement backing ASC as "cutting loose" David Johnston.
It was remiss not to bring you Abbott's comments earlier.
Whilst ASC has had challenges meeting the government's cost and schedule expectations of the Air Warfare Destroyer program, we are working closely with ASC on a reform strategy to improve shipyard performance and productivity. It is early days, but the government is confident that ASC and its partners will successfully turn the corner on this important build.
block-time published-time 9.45am AEST
South Australian Senator Penny Wong has answered Johnston is a fiery speech.
Well, senators that was the minister for defence. This is the gentleman who is supposed to be in charge of our defence personnel who wants us to forgive him and all workers in our ship building industry to forgive him because it was a regrettable rhetorical flourish.
Let us understand this Defence Minister's behaviour. This Defence Minister's behaviour, this is the man who has broken his election promise to build 12 submarines in Adelaide.
This is a man who has trashed the reputation of a major defence industry firm. This is a man who has insulted thousand of hard working Australians employed at the Australian Submarine Corporation and this is the defence minister who is happy to come into question time in our Senate and undermine confidence in Australia's naval capability.
He is a disgrace. He is a utter disgrace. This is a man who is in charge of a multibillion-dollar project who has jeopardised the fair and equitable conduct of that procurement process. Does anyone believe after his performance that this minister will make a fair and unbiased decision when it comes to the future submarines project?
No-one in Australia believes that, no-one in this Senate believes that. Not even your South Australian colleagues behind you or in fact your Cabinet colleagues believe that.
Labor's Stephen Conroy yells:
Bring back Arthur!
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 9.53am AEST
block-time published-time 9.40am AEST
Johnston says he did not mean to offend on subs
David Johnston has just made a statement on indulgence in the senate, saying he did not mean to cause offence.
I wish to make a short statement to the Senate regarding ASC and Australian shipbuilding.
All Australian's have come to know well the frustrations successive Governments faced in fielding a world class submarine capability. And today we are in the middle of a $8 billion program to build three Air Warfare Destroyers. We have all faced challenges. This can not be denied.
The frustrations of successive Governments with the performance of both the Collins Class sustainment and the AWD program are well documented.
In 2011, Labor Defence Minister Stephen Smith expressed his own concerns on the sustainment of Collins. He said:
"Without having confidence in our capacity to sustain our current fleet of submarines, it is very difficult to fully commence, other than through initial planning, the acquisition program for our Future Submarine."
(ASPI presentation, 19/7/2011)
I am committed to leading the effort to fix our problems. And regrettably, in rhetorical flourish, I did express my frustrations in the past performance of ASC. In these comments I never intended to cause offence and I regret that offence may have been taken.
And I of course was directing my remarks at a legacy of issues and not the workers in ASC whom I consider to be world class.
And on the matter at hand, the Government has not made any decisions on the future submarine. Decisions will be made as I have said time and again on the advice of our Service Chiefs.
Our goal is to deliver to our Navy a new class of submarine that is superior to Collins, before the planned withdrawal date of the Collins class. Given the sheer scale of submarine programs, it is only by working together as a team that we will reach this goal.
The former Government's submarine program was costed at over $40 billion by Defence and would have resulted in a capability gap. This is an unacceptable risk to our $1.6 trillion economy.
Whatever decision is made on the future submarine, there will be more jobs for South Australia and a more capable Navy for Australians.
Thank you Mr President and I thank the indulgence of the Senate.
block-time published-time 9.30am AEST
Stuart Robert's argument in defending Johnston revolves around the general budgetary argument that Labor cut defence spending and the Coalition has increased defence spending.
So apparently you don't need to worry about the minister's performance.
Robert says Johnston has been "very open and honest".
Australia's sub capability gap was caused because Labor made "zero" decisions on the contracts, says Robert.
block-time published-time 9.28am AEST
Tony Burke is going through the past sins of the defence minister David Johnston.
He says the defence minister has been on radio "saying to Australia and to the world, please don't take me seriously". Burke says Christopher Pyne was late to the house because he was on radio, refusing to defend Johnston this morning.
He must be starting a petition.
Of all the jobs where... you would think someone needs backing in, it would be the defence minister.
Burke reminds the house that when Johnston was asked at a recent senate estimates hearing why he hadn't attended the National Secuity Committee, the minister said:
I wasn't going to add much.
Stuart Robert, the assistant minister for defence, has been given the worst job in government today. Defending David Johnston.
block-time published-time 9.21am AEST
Now Labor's Tony Burke is having a go. Expect him to be guillotined shortly.
block-time published-time 9.20am AEST
The house just guillotined the David Johnston debate 79-49.
Here is the full Johnston from Adelaide ABC. A bit like the full Monty.
Q: David Johnston ... what possessed you to say that you wouldn't trust the ASC to build a canoe?
Well, David, frustration I think but look, that was a rhetorical flourish that I don't want to be taken literally but the fact is I am very frustrated. What has happened is ... the Labor Party has hidden the truth with respect to that air warfare destroyer program from us. It's in a bad shape but we are fixing it ... as I sit here talking to you now there are some green shoots which I'm very pleased to say that I'm starting to see
... ( Bevan: But your attack was not on so much on the Labor Party in making that comment, your attack was on the ASC and the workers there ... either the ASC is incredibly incompetent or you are?)
It was not an attack on the workers ... let's get that straight. The workers have done a very good job down there and may I say that this is an extremely complex program. The air warfare destroyer program is the most complex program Australia's ever undertaken. Yes, we are probably half a billion dollars over budget and two years late, yes there were two attempts to remediate that program by the previous Government, both of which failed.
The Minister in charge of the Australian Submarine Corporation of course was Penny Wong ... she is the one who is responsible for this and you're quite right ... what I should have said was the Labor Party could not be trusted to build a canoe because it was their responsibility and she takes no responsibility.
block-time published-time 9.14am AEST
Here is another wonderful mashup on the plight of the government re the ABC and budget problem generally. But it makes a nice metaphor, particularly for the Python fans amongst us.
block-time published-time 9.12am AEST
The parliament is voting on the guillotine now but obviously the government has the numbers to win.
block-time published-time 9.12am AEST
The government has just guillotined debate on defence minister Johnston.
block-time published-time 9.11am AEST
Parliament is sitting and there is immediately an argument because a government minister was not ready when the bell rang. Speaker Bishop is saying "no biggie". She is telling the house yesterday's behaviour was a "disgrace".
Then Bill Shorten is straight into a suspension of standing orders to censure the defence minister and call on Tony Abbott to sack David Johnston.
Bill Shorten:
The parliament notes the defence minister promised on 8 May 2013 that a Coalition would deliver submarines built in South Australia.
With his comments that ASC couldn't "build a canoe", Johnston insulted the highly skilled workers at ASC.
He calls on the prime minister to attend the house and confirm why he hasn't asked David Johnston to withdraw his remarks
He calls on the PM to sack the minister for defence.
Shorten says Johnston has shown chronic under-performance since he started as defence minister.
block-time published-time 9.03am AEST
A helpful reader Jimmy sent us this:
@gabriellechanpic.twitter.com/VPApa3jkGO
- #Jimmy (@choox75) November 25, 2014
block-time published-time 9.00am AEST
Up shit creek? Here's your paddle.S
Independent South Australian Senator Nick Xenophon awaits his turn in front of the cameras complete with his "paddle". Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
South Australian senator and resident stuntmeister Nick Xenophon has been out early defending his state and the Australian Submarine Corporation from the defence minister David Johnston.
He baldly stated: "The government is up shit creek without a paddle". So he brought one in. Apparently he is no paddler, so he had to source the paddle from a Canberra club.
Already Johnston and other government members have been out defending his comments as:
rhetorical flourish.
But the feeling in parliament is that when Tony Abbott said he had to scrape a few barnacles off the ship, he was thinking of his defence minister. And though Johnston's self inflicted wound came after Abbott's barnacle comment, if he did not have the minister in mind at the party room speech, he most certainly will now.
block-time published-time 8.50am AEST
Good morning all,
It is Wednesday, and Wednesday being what it is, especially in a sitting week, there is some peak political blather coming your way.
There is a lot on the news agenda already this morning.
The defence minister David Johnston is under extreme pressure for attacking the government-owned Australian Submarine Corporation. Johnston, whose performance was already in question, said he wouldn't "trust the ASC to build a canoe". Tony Abbott rushed out with a statement to defend the ASC, rather than his minister.
Which is not great timing, given this is the guy in charge of the defence forces. His attention will be divided, as also today we are expecting the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce report into sexual abuse in the ADF as well as another report into the cases of abuse at the Australian Defence Force Academy historically.
Jacqui Lambie is still waiting to talk to the prime minister about the defence force pay issue. She has been out already this morning, waving her arms, reminding the PM that she is still waiting.
A same sex marriage private bill is also expected in the senate, with a neat wedge issue delivered to the Abbott government by Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm.
Bill Shorten is speaking to the National Press Club. On standby for #peakzinger.
Clive Palmer is in court with two Chinese companies who are suing him over using $12m to fund the Palmer United Party election campaign.
I think that's enough to keep you going before your morning beverage. Mike Bowers has more #LegoSenate for you today, so follow him @mpbowers or me @gabrielle chan on the Twits.
Tony Abbott: David Johnston has my full confidence - question time live Tony Abbott under pressure to drop the defence minister David Johnston after the prime minister was forced to defend the Australian Submarine Company, while Jacqui Lambie expects a deal on defence pay. Follow it live... false theguardian.com true http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/11/26/1416978028089/4a8e8c5d-3ccd-41cd-be3a-4aab57d04998-140x84.jpeg 7319 true 452607965 false 5474f0efe4b0111029b679d9 false Gabrielle Chan false 2198955 AUS true 2014-11-29T08:45:00+11:00
LOAD-DATE: November 26, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
215 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 26, 2014 Wednesday 2:28 AM GMT
block-time published-time 1.25pm AEST Bill;
Abbott under pressure to drop the defence minister, David Johnston, after the PM was forced to defend the Australian Submarine Company, while Jacqui Lambie expects a deal on defence pay. Follow it live...
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 5256 words
block-time published-time 1.25pm AEST
Bill Shorten is asked about the budget and what should be dropped in the face of budget problem. How should Joe Hockey handle it? Shorten predicts the government may drop higher education deregulation as one of the "barnacles" Tony Abbott said he would remove.
Well the first thing is he should just go down to Bunnings, not Bunnings, go to Kmart or Target, buy himself a white tea towel, put it on a wooden broom and wave surrender on his silly changes.
block-time published-time 1.18pm AEST
Shorten is asked about Labor's idea of fairness and how it equates with asylum seeker policy, where Labor has moved to the right.
I believe that Labor's push for regional resettlement has been the cornerstone upon which the people smugglers' model has been broken. In terms of this government and what they're doing in terms of their temporary visas, we need to look at the detail carefully.
And fairness?
block-time published-time 1.14pm AEST
A number of questions have been asked pushing Bill Shorten to acknowledge the mistakes Labor made in government. He vaguely mentions not being brave enough on climate change.
there's no doubt and we've taken responsibility for various matters over the last year and a quarter. But we missed an opportunity in 2009 with the collapse of Copenhagen and in hindsight, I'm not saying I had this view at the time but in hindsight, and hindsight is an invaluable tool, we've all used it, is we should have pushed for a double dissolution and there is no doubt that Tony Abbott ran a very effective campaign against the high fixed price on carbon that we put in that term. So yeah, I get that we need to rebuild trust.
block-time published-time 1.10pm AEST
Mike Bowers, meantime, is having too much fun.
Heffernan- I withdraw Mr President that Senator Conroy is a blockhead #BrickSenate@gabriellechan@GuardianAuspic.twitter.com/d4xJtzXfcT
- Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) November 26, 2014
block-time published-time 1.05pm AEST
Finally Shorten addresses Labor's reputation from the previous government:
I recognise that Labor has to rebuild the nation's faith in us. We are are determined to earn the trust of the Australian people. We will earn their trust and we will repay their trust. Today I give Australians this commitment. We will seek a mandate based on a positive plan. We will not ask the Australian people to vote for us just because we are not the Abbott Government.
That final line a direct nod to the last election.
block-time published-time 1.02pm AEST
Bill Shorten at the Press Club:
For people on lower earning careers, like teaching, nursing and community work, and for women in particular, Christopher Pyne is playing loan shark. Today it takes a woman social worker around 9 years to pay off her degree. Under Tony Abbott's changes she would never pay back her total HECS bill.
block-time published-time 1.00pm AEST
Bill Shorten prosecutes the case against the Coalition's budget while moving onto the Labor agenda.
Labor would have signed up to the China-led Asian Infrastructure Bank, which Abbott has declined until the rules change.
Shorten says if Australia is to competing in the "new world order" governments have to create jobs in a global economy. Shorten again pushes his higher education priority, in contrast to the government's higher education deregulation, which will increase university fees.
A lifetime of student debt is not a reform.
block-time published-time 12.50pm AEST
Bill Shorten says Abbott was "blind-sided" by China and the US on climate change and described as a "flat-earther" by Tories in Britain.
The PM was lost in space. While real world events were moving around him. Remember, even the hyped up shirt front with President Putin turned into a butterfly kiss. The uncompromising words were left to Germany's Angela Merkel and Canada's Stephen Harper while our PM settled for a photo with Putin nursing a couple of bewildered koalas. The ignominy of it. And it wasn't just President Obama's inspirational speech or his decisive actions alongside President Xi that threw Tony Abbott's stubborn reactionism into sharp relief. Soon the Tories in Britain were calling him a flat-earther. Japan and Canada announced their substantial contributions to the green climate fund, an institution which our bewildered PM has previously dismissed as socialism masquerading as environmentalism.
block-time published-time 12.45pm AEST
Bill Shorten raised the G20 speech:
On that Saturday morning in eight excruciating minutes, the PM delivered a weird, cringe-worthy, little Australia lecture to the global community...There he was, boasting about taking Australia backwards on climate change. There he was bemoaning the massively difficult job he has as Australian PM, whining about the unpopularity of his GP tax and his plan for $100,000 degrees. And presenting live to the world a negative character reference of his own people, the Australian public, blaming them, our people, for his government's failures. Damning our country as selfish, anti-modern, anti-reform, anti-change.
block-time published-time 12.42pm AEST
Bill Shorten has said Tony Abbott is not suitable to be Australia's prime minister. He has outlined the G20 events, including Abbott's speech to world leaders on his domestic agenda.
On every issue the same problem - no vision, no plan, no trust. Tony Abbott has no vision for foreign policy, for Australia's foreign policy future or our economic future. And he is deliberately and wilfully deepening the trust deficit, ignoring the wishes and the wisdom of the Australian people.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.42pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.39pm AEST
Lunch time political summary
David Johnston has said his comments on the Australian Submarine Corporation were not meant to offend but expressed frustration at its past performance. Labor tried to censure Johnston but failed on numbers.
A report into sexual abuse in the defence force has recommended a royal commission.
The senate continues to debate the counter terrorism bill which would share intelligence between the security agencies and the defence forces.
The Speaker Bronwyn Bishop has introduced a bill to beef up parliamentary security.
block-time published-time 12.33pm AEST
While the senate goes through its various amendments on counter terrorism, which will not pass as Labor is supporting, Bill Shorten is about to speak at the National Press Club.
block-time published-time 12.21pm AEST
Meanwhile Senator Bill Heffernan provides a little plain English.
Senator Heffernan "I withdraw Mr President that senator Conroy is a boofhead" @gabriellechan@GuardianAuspic.twitter.com/Ud48Lgqlmx
- Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) November 26, 2014
block-time published-time 12.05pm AEST
George Brandis is speaking to his counter terrorism legislation in the senate. There has been an interesting argument this morning enunciated by Brandis around counter terrorism and the paradigm of the debate on national security.
It carves out the difference between suspecting a terrorist act in order to stop a crime before it happens as opposed to providing enough evidence to prove a terrorist act, after the event.
It goes to some of the debate in Britain around the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby by terrorists on the street outside his barracks and the issue of whether the crime could have been prevented.
The trouble with the counter terrorism debate, says Brandis, is that many groups, including the Greens are arguing about the laws to stop terrorism in a "criminal law paradigm" where an event has already occurred. These laws are to stop terrorism before the event.
Brandis to Penny Wright:
I understand you have a philosophical objection to control orders themselves but we are not debating the broad point now, we are debating the narrow point.
Within the control order regime, ought there be a capacity if all other conditions are satisfied, ought there be a jurisdiction to issue a control order, where to do so would substantially assist in preventing the provision or support for or the facilitation of a terrorist act.
Instead what you and your Green people would have us do is provide an order where a person HAD provided support for a terrorist act...
If there is enough evidence to show a person has provided support for or has committed a terrorist act, well you wouldnt be issuying a control order, you would be issuing an arrrest warrent....
Once the terrorist act has occurred, it's too late. That's why we have to move out of this criminal law paradigm to think that this is about punishment for offences that have been committed.
The purposes of counter terrorism policy and counter terrorism law is to provide the apparatus to interdict so as to prevent the occurrence of a terrorism act and control orders, judiciously hedged by the many safeguards with which they are hedged, are a very important part of that apparatus.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.15pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.35am AEST
George Brandis strong defence of David Johnston provides a momentary paddle.
George Brandis defends David Johnston in the senate. #BrickSenate Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
(Independent senator Nick Xenophon said Johnston's comments regarding the Australian Submarine Corporation landed the defence minister up the creek without a paddle.)
block-time published-time 11.30am AEST
The senate is now back onto the counter terror laws, that is the amendment that allows Asis to share intelligence with the defence forces and for the extension of control orders. Penny Wright has raised George Brandis' refusal to answer questions in the committee stage of debate yesterday.
He flat-out refused to answer legitimate questions about the Bill - sitting in the Senate wilfully ignoring me - without the courtesy to even explain the basis on which answers were being refused. I was asking these questions on behalf of all those who do not have the opportunity: legal experts, human rights organisations, civil liberties groups and those at the forefront of national security policy.
Wright said while some changes had been made to allay fears on the bill, not enough had been done.
And yet Senator Brandis could not even find it within himself to give me - and by extension, the Australian public - the courtesy of a response.
Brandis says he wants to stick to the substance of the bill rather than the senate processes.
I don't want to have a meta debate. I don't want to have a debate about a debate.
block-time published-time 11.16am AEST
A slip of the tongue, says Brandis.
George Brandis in full flight, defending David Johnston. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 11.09am AEST
During the procedural votes over censures of David Johnston and Malcolm Turnbull, there was a little tete a tete between Anthony Albanese and Christopher Pyne - two of sharpest parliamentary operators in the house.
Pyne, as leader of the house, was getting to the end of his tether even though it was only 10am in the morning. He yelled:
Grow up you losers.
We could not pick up Albanese's reply.
Shadow for Infrastructure Anthony Albanese and the Leader of the House Christopher Pyne exchange pleasantries. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 11.02am AEST
Seantor David Leyonhjelm has revealed more on his Freedom to Marry bill, allowing same sex marriage bill. Here is a soundbite from his speech to the senate last night. Note he has not yet introduced the bill.
Those arguments fall under three heads: liberty, conscience and state power. I turn first to liberty. To most people, marriage equality means the right to get married irrespective of gender or sexual preference. But it is much more than that; it is the right to live your life as you choose and not have the government impose a particular view on you.
Daniel Hurst has a story here on the bill.
The bill, which Leyonhjelm will not bring to a vote until he has the numbers, makes a very simple change.
It changes the word "man" and "woman" to "2 people". It also provides a counterpoint by allowing civil celebrants to refuse to marry on the grounds of conscience. This is a power religious ministers already have.
block-time published-time 10.51am AEST
The senate debate regarding David Johnston continues, with attorney general George Brandis defending the minister. He - and Abetz before him - raise the occasion when Labor's Stephen Conroy attacked General Angus Campbell in senate estimates.
That was over the Coalition's asylum seeker policy was under attack and Conroy essentially accused Campbell of being involved in a political cover up.
A rather peeved Brandis describes Campbell as:
A better man than senator Conroy will ever be.
He quotes Campbell's reply to Conroy, describing his "extreme offence" at the statement.
To the eternal "disgrace and shame" of senator Conroy, he never apologised to Campbell, says Brandis. Conroy, "the alternative defence minister".
When my friend the defence minister made a slip of the tongue...
Then Brandis goes into reports that Julia Gillard sent her bodyguard to the national security committee.
block-time published-time 10.38am AEST
Helen Davidson has done a first take on the report into sexual abuse in the defence force.
The federal government must hold a royal commission into allegations of abuse during the entire history of the Australian Defence Force training academy (Adfa), an investigative taskforce has recommended.
The defence minister, David Johnston, tabled two reports by the defence abuse response taskforce (Dart) to parliament on Wednesday.
The first covered allegations and instances of abuse within the ADF over several decades, while the second looks more specifically at cases at Adfa.
In justifying its call for a royal commission into Adfa, Dart said the ADF was unable to adequately deal with the cases itself as so much time had passed since they occurred or were reported.
"The taskforce has concluded that the only way of ensuring confidence that the allegations of very serious abuse at Adfa can be thoroughly and completely investigated - and appropriately dealt with - is by way of a royal commission," said the chairman of the taskforce, Len Roberts-Smith QC.
It will be interesting to see if the government, which began its life quickly establishing two royal commissions (into home insulations and trade unions ), accepts the recommendation for a sexual abuse royal commission.
block-time published-time 10.26am AEST
Here's Eric Abetz defending David Johnston.
Eric. Abetz defends defence minister David Johnston @GuardianAus@gabriellechanhttp://t.co/dxZxKbj6NBpic.twitter.com/TFBK80gW6V
- Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) November 25, 2014
block-time published-time 10.24am AEST
I would like to correct myself on a procedural matter brought to my attention by a thoughtful rodent.
Re politics live blog @gabriellechan@GuardianAus only bills are guillotined. Motions are gagged. That's right @AuSenate ? #proceduralnerdery
- Rat (@ThoughtfulRat) November 25, 2014
I have checked and that is right so I will amend my language from now on. If you are going to knock something off, it is very important to note whether it is guillotined or gagged. There may be a cartoon in that.
block-time published-time 10.16am AEST
Parliamentary security bill
Speaker Bishop is making a statement to the house on security around parliament house. She is introducing the parliamentary service amendment bill 2014. It will:
enable a representative of Australian Federal Police to be security management board of parliament.
amend the remit of the board to allow it to provide advice to presiding officers (Speaker and President) on the management or operation of security.
Labor's Tony Burke says they have been briefed on the bill but have not seen the detail. He says while Labor agrees in principle, he would like to see the bill before going straight into a debate.
Speaker Bishop agrees to adjourn the debate.
Burkas were not mentioned.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.17am AEST
block-time published-time 10.12am AEST
Eric Abetz has just given a full dissertation on what a fantastic job defence minister David Johnston has been doing. He countered Labor's attack with the arguments that:
a) Labor had cut the defence budget.
b) we are all human.
c) leave him alone.
block-time published-time 10.04am AEST
The house is now going through a series of procedural votes on the Turnbull suspension, guillotining, putting questions, moving motions.
block-time published-time 10.03am AEST
Liberal member gets punted.
The Liberal member for Bass Andrew Nickolic is evicted from the chamber. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 10.01am AEST
This is the Labor motion on Malcolm Turnbull.
1. Notes that:
(a) on Monday 24 November 2014, the Prime Minister stated to the House: "We are applying an efficiency dividend to the ABC"; and
(b) the next day, the Minister for Communications directly contradicted the Prime Minister's statement in the House by stating on Sky News, "It is not an efficiency dividend," and again, "This is not an efficiency dividend"; and
Censures the Prime Minister for deliberately misleading:
(a) the Parliament;
(b) the Australian people when he promised on the night before the last election that there would be "No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST, and no cuts to the ABC or SBS"; and
(c) the Australian people when he said, "It is an absolute principle of democracy that governments should not and must not say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards."
Government has guillotined debate.
Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen during a lively opening session as the opposition tried to suspend standing orders in Parliament. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 9.56am AEST
The house is now censuring Malcolm Turnbull on the ABC/SBS. Government has guillotined debate again. Labor's Jason Clare gets less than a sentence out before Christopher Pyne shuts him down.
block-time published-time 9.53am AEST
This is the Labor motion censuring David Johnston that was guillotined in the house first thing.
That the House:
Notes that the Minister for Defence;
(a) Promised on 8 May 2013 that the Coalition "will deliver those submarines from right here at ASC in South Australia. The Coalition today is committed to building 12 new submarines here in Adelaide.", and then broke that promise worth $20 billion; and
(b) Cut the real pay, Christmas and recreation leave for Australia's Defence men and women; and
(c) Insulted the highly skilled and dedicated workers at ASC on 25 November 2014 by saying he 'did not trust them to build a canoe'.
Calls on the Prime Minister to immediately attend the House and confirm:
(a) why he has failed to direct the Minister for Defence to withdraw his insulting remarks; and
(b) whether he retains full confidence in the Minister for Defence.
Should the Prime Minister fail to attend the House, that the House:
(a) condemns the Prime Minister for his failure to stand up for Australia's defence personnel;
(b) calls on the Prime Minister to sack the Minister for Defence.
Debate was shut down.
block-time published-time 9.50am AEST
Labor have characterised Tony Abbott's statement backing ASC as "cutting loose" David Johnston.
It was remiss not to bring you Abbott's comments earlier.
Whilst ASC has had challenges meeting the government's cost and schedule expectations of the Air Warfare Destroyer program, we are working closely with ASC on a reform strategy to improve shipyard performance and productivity. It is early days, but the government is confident that ASC and its partners will successfully turn the corner on this important build.
block-time published-time 9.45am AEST
South Australian Senator Penny Wong has answered Johnston is a fiery speech.
Well, senators that was the minister for defence. This is the gentleman who is supposed to be in charge of our defence personnel who wants us to forgive him and all workers in our ship building industry to forgive him because it was a regrettable rhetorical flourish.
Let us understand this Defence Minister's behaviour. This Defence Minister's behaviour, this is the man who has broken his election promise to build 12 submarines in Adelaide.
This is a man who has trashed the reputation of a major defence industry firm. This is a man who has insulted thousand of hard working Australians employed at the Australian Submarine Corporation and this is the defence minister who is happy to come into question time in our Senate and undermine confidence in Australia's naval capability.
He is a disgrace. He is a utter disgrace. This is a man who is in charge of a multibillion-dollar project who has jeopardised the fair and equitable conduct of that procurement process. Does anyone believe after his performance that this minister will make a fair and unbiased decision when it comes to the future submarines project?
No-one in Australia believes that, no-one in this Senate believes that. Not even your South Australian colleagues behind you or in fact your Cabinet colleagues believe that.
Labor's Stephen Conroy yells:
Bring back Arthur!
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 9.53am AEST
block-time published-time 9.40am AEST
Johnston says he did not mean to offend on subs
David Johnston has just made a statement on indulgence in the senate, saying he did not mean to cause offence.
I wish to make a short statement to the Senate regarding ASC and Australian shipbuilding.
All Australian's have come to know well the frustrations successive Governments faced in fielding a world class submarine capability. And today we are in the middle of a $8 billion program to build three Air Warfare Destroyers. We have all faced challenges. This can not be denied.
The frustrations of successive Governments with the performance of both the Collins Class sustainment and the AWD program are well documented.
In 2011, Labor Defence Minister Stephen Smith expressed his own concerns on the sustainment of Collins. He said:
"Without having confidence in our capacity to sustain our current fleet of submarines, it is very difficult to fully commence, other than through initial planning, the acquisition program for our Future Submarine."
(ASPI presentation, 19/7/2011)
I am committed to leading the effort to fix our problems. And regrettably, in rhetorical flourish, I did express my frustrations in the past performance of ASC. In these comments I never intended to cause offence and I regret that offence may have been taken.
And I of course was directing my remarks at a legacy of issues and not the workers in ASC whom I consider to be world class.
And on the matter at hand, the Government has not made any decisions on the future submarine. Decisions will be made as I have said time and again on the advice of our Service Chiefs.
Our goal is to deliver to our Navy a new class of submarine that is superior to Collins, before the planned withdrawal date of the Collins class. Given the sheer scale of submarine programs, it is only by working together as a team that we will reach this goal.
The former Government's submarine program was costed at over $40 billion by Defence and would have resulted in a capability gap. This is an unacceptable risk to our $1.6 trillion economy.
Whatever decision is made on the future submarine, there will be more jobs for South Australia and a more capable Navy for Australians.
Thank you Mr President and I thank the indulgence of the Senate.
block-time published-time 9.30am AEST
Stuart Robert's argument in defending Johnston revolves around the general budgetary argument that Labor cut defence spending and the Coalition has increased defence spending.
So apparently you don't need to worry about the minister's performance.
Robert says Johnston has been "very open and honest".
Australia's sub capability gap was caused because Labor made "zero" decisions on the contracts, says Robert.
block-time published-time 9.28am AEST
Tony Burke is going through the past sins of the defence minister David Johnston.
He says the defence minister has been on radio "saying to Australia and to the world, please don't take me seriously". Burke says Christopher Pyne was late to the house because he was on radio, refusing to defend Johnston this morning.
He must be starting a petition.
Of all the jobs where... you would think someone needs backing in, it would be the defence minister.
Burke reminds the house that when Johnston was asked at a recent senate estimates hearing why he hadn't attended the National Secuity Committee, the minister said:
I wasn't going to add much.
Stuart Robert, the assistant minister for defence, has been given the worst job in government today. Defending David Johnston.
block-time published-time 9.21am AEST
Now Labor's Tony Burke is having a go. Expect him to be guillotined shortly.
block-time published-time 9.20am AEST
The house just guillotined the David Johnston debate 79-49.
Here is the full Johnston from Adelaide ABC. A bit like the full Monty.
Q: David Johnston ... what possessed you to say that you wouldn't trust the ASC to build a canoe?
Well, David, frustration I think but look, that was a rhetorical flourish that I don't want to be taken literally but the fact is I am very frustrated. What has happened is ... the Labor Party has hidden the truth with respect to that air warfare destroyer program from us. It's in a bad shape but we are fixing it ... as I sit here talking to you now there are some green shoots which I'm very pleased to say that I'm starting to see
... ( Bevan: But your attack was not on so much on the Labor Party in making that comment, your attack was on the ASC and the workers there ... either the ASC is incredibly incompetent or you are?)
It was not an attack on the workers ... let's get that straight. The workers have done a very good job down there and may I say that this is an extremely complex program. The air warfare destroyer program is the most complex program Australia's ever undertaken. Yes, we are probably half a billion dollars over budget and two years late, yes there were two attempts to remediate that program by the previous Government, both of which failed.
The Minister in charge of the Australian Submarine Corporation of course was Penny Wong ... she is the one who is responsible for this and you're quite right ... what I should have said was the Labor Party could not be trusted to build a canoe because it was their responsibility and she takes no responsibility.
block-time published-time 9.14am AEST
Here is another wonderful mashup on the plight of the government re the ABC and budget problem generally. But it makes a nice metaphor, particularly for the Python fans amongst us.
block-time published-time 9.12am AEST
The parliament is voting on the guillotine now but obviously the government has the numbers to win.
block-time published-time 9.12am AEST
The government has just guillotined debate on defence minister Johnston.
block-time published-time 9.11am AEST
Parliament is sitting and there is immediately an argument because a government minister was not ready when the bell rang. Speaker Bishop is saying "no biggie". She is telling the house yesterday's behaviour was a "disgrace".
Then Bill Shorten is straight into a suspension of standing orders to censure the defence minister and call on Tony Abbott to sack David Johnston.
Bill Shorten:
The parliament notes the defence minister promised on 8 May 2013 that a Coalition would deliver submarines built in South Australia.
With his comments that ASC couldn't "build a canoe", Johnston insulted the highly skilled workers at ASC.
He calls on the prime minister to attend the house and confirm why he hasn't asked David Johnston to withdraw his remarks
He calls on the PM to sack the minister for defence.
Shorten says Johnston has shown chronic under-performance since he started as defence minister.
block-time published-time 9.03am AEST
A helpful reader Jimmy sent us this:
@gabriellechanpic.twitter.com/VPApa3jkGO
- #Jimmy (@choox75) November 25, 2014
block-time published-time 9.00am AEST
Up shit creek? Here's your paddle.S
Independent South Australian Senator Nick Xenophon awaits his turn in front of the cameras complete with his "paddle". Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
South Australian senator and resident stuntmeister Nick Xenophon has been out early defending his state and the Australian Submarine Corporation from the defence minister David Johnston.
He baldly stated: "The government is up shit creek without a paddle". So he brought one in. Apparently he is no paddler, so he had to source the paddle from a Canberra club.
Already Johnston and other government members have been out defending his comments as:
rhetorical flourish.
But the feeling in parliament is that when Tony Abbott said he had to scrape a few barnacles off the ship, he was thinking of his defence minister. And though Johnston's self inflicted wound came after Abbott's barnacle comment, if he did not have the minister in mind at the party room speech, he most certainly will now.
block-time published-time 8.50am AEST
Good morning all,
It is Wednesday, and Wednesday being what it is, especially in a sitting week, there is some peak political blather coming your way.
There is a lot on the news agenda already this morning.
The defence minister David Johnston is under extreme pressure for attacking the government-owned Australian Submarine Corporation. Johnston, whose performance was already in question, said he wouldn't "trust the ASC to build a canoe". Tony Abbott rushed out with a statement to defend the ASC, rather than his minister.
Which is not great timing, given this is the guy in charge of the defence forces. His attention will be divided, as also today we are expecting the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce report into sexual abuse in the ADF as well as another report into the cases of abuse at the Australian Defence Force Academy historically.
Jacqui Lambie is still waiting to talk to the prime minister about the defence force pay issue. She has been out already this morning, waving her arms, reminding the PM that she is still waiting.
A same sex marriage private bill is also expected in the senate, with a neat wedge issue delivered to the Abbott government by Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm.
Bill Shorten is speaking to the National Press Club. On standby for #peakzinger.
Clive Palmer is in court with two Chinese companies who are suing him over using $12m to fund the Palmer United Party election campaign.
I think that's enough to keep you going before your morning beverage. Mike Bowers has more #LegoSenate for you today, so follow him @mpbowers or me @gabrielle chan on the Twits.
Bill Shorten savages budget measures at National Press Club - politics live Tony Abbott under pressure to drop the defence minister David Johnston after the prime minister was forced to defend the Australian Submarine Company, while Jacqui Lambie expects a deal on defence pay. Follow it live... false theguardian.com true http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/11/25/1416950739596/cdcb0044-94d9-44b1-8161-221d96e5a4d3-140x84.jpeg 4921 true 452607965 false 5474f0efe4b0111029b679d9 false Gabrielle Chan false 2198955 AUS true 2014-11-29T08:45:00+11:00
LOAD-DATE: November 26, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
216 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Dot Earth)
November 26, 2014 Wednesday
A Optimistic Realist Tours Earth's Age of Humans
BYLINE: ANDREW C. REVKIN
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 1477 words
HIGHLIGHT: A lyrical nature writer explains her optimistic view of the deepening human imprint on the Earth.
When I spent a week in Ithaca, N.Y., as a visiting professor at Cornell earlier this fall, I finally got to meet Diane Ackerman, the author and poet best known for a string of lyrical and popular books on natural history and human nature. She had spent the last couple of years dug in on terrain that's familiar here - the Anthropocene, a k a this era in which humans are powerfully jogging a host of planetary systems.
The resulting book, "The Human Age," is a splendidly prismatic tour of humans' techno-biological environmental impacts and tinkering, taking readers from an encounter with the Toronto Zoo's iPad-wielding orangutans ("ginger-haired tree dancers," in Ackerman's parlance) to the sterile drawers of DNA from vanishing wildlife at the University of Nottingham's Frozen Ark project back to the Creative Machines Lab of roboticist Hod Lipson in her home town.
She wisely explores not only how we are changing the external environment but also describes various fields of science altering our inner environment, to the level of genes. In this, the book echoes one of my favorite recent volumes, "The Techno-Human Condition," by Brad Allenby and Daniel Sarewitz at the University of Arizona.
As with any tour, there are gaps, as Rob Nixon pointed out in his mostly laudatory review in The Times; it's up to other books (say, "The Bottom Billion") to reveal the extraordinary inequity on humanity's planet at the moment, as well as the full sweep of life-changing bottom-up innovations in poor places (see "How to Change the World").
But nearly every page holds surprises and, as always, Ackerman's writing is like a bubbling stream in mysterious woods. Here's a brief taped conversation we had (followed by a transcript, with a few adjustments for written style):
[Video: Watch on YouTube.]
Q.
There are so many definitions of the Anthropocene that we don't even know how to pronounce it yet. How do you define it - the age of humans?
A.
This is the first time in our presence on the planet that we have become aware of our impact - that we can influence all of the plants and animals on every continent, in every ocean, that is really quite extraordinary. The Anthropocene is a time of awareness, when we've been able to hold up a mirror to ourselves for the first time and put into perspective who we are, and maybe get us thinking about what kind of animals we want to be, what our role is on the planet.
Q.
Where was the place where you felt most vividly this sense of human nature?
A.
I was especially aware of our influence on the planet when I was visiting the Frozen Ark in Nottingham, England. There they store the DNA from all of the most endangered animals in the world. They're trying to collect all of the DNA from every ecosystem against that evil day when we lose animals that we need to have or to enrich gene pools. But that we can do that, that you can open up a drawer and hold the DNA of a lion in the palm of your hand, that is not something that our kind has ever been able to do before. It really brought home that we're living in a new age.
Q.
[The Anthropocene] comes with all of these ethical questions, some of which you explore in the book - that come in recreating a species or with the mashing up of genes as with genetically modified organisms we utilize. The ethical questions are as big as the biological or scientific ones.
Q.
The ethical questions are going to get even bigger. I had no idea so many people were in love with woolly mammoths. But an awful lot of people want to bring them back. Of course they'd be carried by elephant mothers, who would be very surprised when they gave birth to something that was very shaggy and didn't sound like an elephant. I think one of the key quesitons will be, will that animal outperform, outcompete the other creatures that are there? If so it'd be an invasive species not from another place, but another time. What happens if we bring back Neanderthals?
Q.
The other thing I found valuable about the book is that a lot of accounts of the sustainability question just look at how many people and how much stuff - population and consumption. But you spend a good chunk of the book looking at the changing nature of the human being itself. So it's not just the number of people, but how long we live, what we do with our genetics and that kind of thing, as well?
A.
We've changed our ideas about what is natural for a human being. We just think it's normal for human beings to fly through the air at 500 miles an hour or be able to do giant calculations at speed, or be able to move mountains. These are natural things for humans to do. But we're not paying attention to it and we're not paying attention to all of the resources we're using while we're doing this. However, one of the best things that we're doing for sustainability is the multi-faceted approach people are using - where they're not only going into developing countries to do putting in place projects that have to do with climate, but multi-faceted ones that will feed a lot of people, plant a lot of trees that will absorb carbon and raise the economy and really attend to a lot of issues at the same time.
Q.
Like me, you tend to look at all of this with an optimistic lens, but what is the aspect of the challenge we face in the Anthropocene that does keep you up at night?
A.
There are so many things we could do better, but what keeps me up at night is the thought that people are so discouraged and so depressed that they're afraid to act, that they think it's no acting - that there's nothing they can do. It's best if we start to realize that you can be an optimist and a realist at the same time. Climate change is absolutely real. It's urgent. We need to take care of it immediately. Some of it is irreversible, no question. But on the other hand, there's so much that we can do. And this is precisely the time when it is important that you don't lose hope.
Finally, I encourage you to read a piece by Ackerman that just ran on Huffington Post: "The Six Most Ingenious Things Humans Are Doing This Week." Here's a snippet:
It may not always seem like it, but this is a golden age of imagination and invention. That's not to say that the world isn't sick with violence, poverty and misrule. It surely is. But, long ago, our species of great ape left the others far behind, reinventing ourselves as explorers, builders, communicators, artists and dreamers. That's never been truer than today, as creative minds toil in the service of the planet and others.
Because climate change, poverty, and famine are complex worldwide problems, they're inspiring equally complex, world-changing solutions. It's now possible to pursue a career in, say, engineering, and make a good living, while also helping to reduce poverty, feed the hungry, preserve biodiversity, and rein in climate change. Never before have we been so dangerous to the planet and ourselves, or so capable of cooperating on peaceful solutions....
Every week I learn of more jaw-dropping feats of creative problem-solving. Most are economically savvy, while also being environmentally adroit and compassionate. Here are my six favorites at the moment:
ONE. Soccket, a soccer ball that generates electricity whenever it's tossed or kicked. One fifth of humanity, 1.2 billion people worldwide, either don't have electricity or rely on dirty power sources like kerosene and diesel that create health hazards and spew greenhouse emissions. They need cheap, clean, off-grid sources of energy that can be used anywhere. In play, as the Soccket ball spins round, an internal pendulum stores kinetic energy. Dribble and pass the ball for 30 minutes and it will power an LED light for three hours.
Distributed in poorer areas of Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa, it only weighs an ounce more than a regular soccer ball, is just as lively, and doesn't need to be inflated. The company also fields sustainability-gurus, who teach a curriculum of "out of bound" thinking, using local resources "to inspire social invention."
I love that its design company, Uncharted Play, was founded by two juniors at Harvard, and their R & D is funded, aptly, by a Kickstarter campaign. They state proudly on their website: "We make play products that generate renewable energy and inspire social invention. . . Doing good doesn't need to be boring." Nor unhealthy....
TWO. What's not to love about a structure that eats smog? A hospital in Mexico City has unveiled its new façade of tall grey lattices pocked with round and oval portholes. Elegant and modern, the open framework easily passes for architectural chic. But, instead, picture a building that silently purifies the air all around it, neutralizing the pollution from up to a thousand cars a day. Picture sidewalks around it paved with the newly-invented smog-absorbing cement. [ Read the rest .]
LOAD-DATE: November 27, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
217 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 25, 2014 Tuesday 12:59 PM GMT
Australian foreign minister says reef not in danger but what do her own scientists say?;
World leading coral scientist attacks foreign minister saying Australians deserve better representation at international climate meeting
BYLINE: Graham Readfearn
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1795 words
Australia's foreign minister Julie Bishop should apologise for claiming the Great Barrier Reef is "not in danger" from climate change, according to enough scientific evidence to form a small coral atoll.
Sorry. Too glib?
When the minister representing Australia at the next major United Nations climate change negotiations appears unwilling to accept the advice of her own government science and reef management agencies, then it's time to worry.
Indeed, one of the world's leading marine biologists and coral reef experts has told me he thinks Australian's deserve better. But we'll get to that in a bit.
This sorry tale starts with a speech to Australia's University of Queensland from US President Barack Obama, who said the "incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened" by climate change and he'd quite like it if his kids could see that natural glory for themselves, thanks very much.
In response, Bishop said she had made contact with the US Secretary of the Interior and with the White House to apparently correct the record. The GBR wasn't in danger at all. Obama had been poorly briefed. She said:
Of course the Great Barrier Reef will be conserved for generations to come and we do not believe that it is in danger.
Trade minister Andrew Robb backed his cabinet colleague saying Obama's speech had been "misinformed" and "unnecessary". He said:
I don't think others should be coming and lecturing us on climate change... [The speech] gave no sense of the first world, high-class efforts that Australia is making successfully on that issue.
The reef isn't in danger? High-class efforts? Let's go brief ourselves.
Climate dangers
Obama was talking about the GBR in the context of climate change. So what do the Government's own scientists say about that (because surely if you're a government minister, that's where you would get your briefing material from)?
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) is the government agency charged with monitoring the health of the reef and managing activities within the area (like massive expansions in coal export facilities, for example).
Earlier this year GBRMPA released its Outlook Report 2014. Here's what it said:
Climate change remains the most serious threat to the Great Barrier Reef. It is already affecting the Reef and is likely to have far-reaching consequences in the decades to come. Sea temperatures are on the rise and this trend is expected to continue, leading to an increased risk of mass coral bleaching; gradual ocean acidification will increasingly restrict coral growth and survival; and there are likely to be more intense weather events. The extent and persistence of these impacts depends to a large degree on how effectively the issue of rising levels of greenhouse gases is addressed worldwide. The impacts of increasing ocean temperatures and ocean acidification will be amplified by the accumulation of other impacts such as those caused by excess nutrient run-off.
The Australian Institute of Marine Sciences (AIMS) is a government-backed agency whose scientists have published widely on the health of the reef since the 1970s. I've written about their work on the health of the reef before.
One famous 2012 study led by AIMS scientists found that between 1985 and 2012, the reef had lost about half of its coral cover.
AIMS has also outlined how other studies from its scientists and those of others around the world have shown that ocean acidification (caused by increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels) and increasing sea surface temperatures are already slowing the growth rates for some coral species.
As Australia's tropical marine research agency, AIMS faces the significant challenge of filling current knowledge gaps about how the Reef will respond to ongoing climate change. Without global commitment and implementation of greenhouse gas reductions strategies, the Reef's marine climate will change. This knowledge will underpin global and Australian policy and management decision-making, helping to ensure the ongoing health of our reefs and providing a basis for developing mitigation options if they are needed in the future.
You have to wonder what AIMS scientists think of their efforts to "underpin" policy decisions in the wake of the foreign minister's apparent "knowledge gap".
Bishop has explained that she felt Australia's efforts to reduce localised impacts on the reef - such as reducing run-off, managing coastal developments and reducing dredging - had not made it to Barack Obama's desk.
But the Australian Academy of Sciences has recently assessed those very same measures outlined in the draft Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan.
Does the academy agree that the reef is "not in danger"? Here's what it says in a submission about the draft plan :
While the draft Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan contains many positive elements, based on overwhelming scientific evidence the Academy concludes that, in its present state, the draft plan is inadequate to achieve the goal of restoring or even maintaining the diminished Outstanding Universal Value of the reef.
... The draft 2050 plan makes no mention of climate change mitigation or targets for reducing the impacts of climate change, identified as the greatest threat to the reef in both the 2009 and 2014 Great Barrier Reef outlook reports.
Climate meeting
At the last UN climate change meeting in Warsaw, Australia was criticised for failing to send a minister for the high-level sessions that take place in the second week of the negotiations.
This year, the Australian Government is sending Bishop to Peru for the next major meeting in a couple of weeks time.
The key UN agency informing governments on the science and the impacts of climate change is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Perhaps Bishop might want to read the chapter about Australasia on the plane on the way over? Here's some interesting bits.
Hotspots of high vulnerability by 2050 under a medium emissions scenario included: Significant loss of biodiversity in areas such as alpine regions, the Wet Tropics, the Australian southwest, Kakadu wetlands, coral reefs, and sub-Antarctic islands. ... Some potential impacts can be delayed but now appear very difficult to avoid entirely, even with globally effective mitigation and planned adaptation: Significant change in community composition and structure of coral reef systems in Australia, driven by increasing sea surface temperatures and ocean acidification; the ability of corals to adapt naturally to rising temperatures and acidification appears limited and insufficient to offset the detrimental effects. ... The combined impacts of warming and acidification associated with atmospheric CO2 concentrations in excess of 450 to 500 ppm are projected to be associated with increased frequency and severity of coral bleaching, disease incidence and mortality, in turn leading to changes in community composition and structure including increasing dominance by macroalgae. Other stresses, including rising sea levels, increased cyclone intensity, and nutrient-enriched and freshwater runoff, will exacerbate these impacts.
But what about those local management measures that Bishop seems keen to promote? The ones the Australian Academy of Sciences think are inadequate. What does the IPCC chapter on Australia think of those?
Management actions to increase coral reef resilience include reducing fishing pressure on herbivorous fish, protecting top predators, managing runoff quality, and minimizing other human disturbances, especially through marine protected areas. Such actions will slow, but not prevent, long term degradation of reef systems once critical thresholds of ocean temperature and acidity are exceeded and so novel options, including assisted colonization and shading critical reefs have been proposed but remain untested at scale.
One of the world's most cited scientists on climate change and coral reef systems is Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, a marine biologist and director of the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.
He was also a co-ordinating lead author of the recent IPCC report chapter looking at the oceans.
I asked Hoegh-Guldberg what he made of the recent political statements that the reef is "not in danger". Here's what he told me:
What's astounding about this statement from Julie Bishop and those following from Andrew Robb is that the warnings on climate change are not only in the world's best science journals or in the IPCC reports, but that are in government documents from agencies like the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
Barack Obama was merely repeating the science that he had been briefed on - and he had been obviously briefed very well. Now Julie Bishop has a lot on her plate. She either was not briefed very well or she had not been briefed at all, because her statement runs at odds with the peer reviewed science. You couldn't get a statement from the minister that was any more 180 degrees away from actual reality. One would hope that she will get a better briefing and do a lot more homework on the issue [before she arrives in Lima]. The Australian people expect more from their foreign representation at these meetings than what we might have here. We were given a fairyland statement about a really important issue. That IPCC process is extremely robust in finding a scientific consensus but it is also conservative. They are saying it is almost certain that corals will disappear as major parts of ecosystems by the middle of this century. Barack Obama rightly realised this was an issue for his daughters and their children and I think he was completely right to point out the sad sate of affairs. Scientists are now making observations not only on the Great Barrier Reef but elsewhere in the world that corals are growing less vigorously and taking longer to recover from cyclones. Now was Julie Bishop poorly briefed or is there some political dialogue going on here where it is inconvenient for Australia to have this major treasure going downhill.
That political dialogue could be the conversations Australia is currently having with the United Nations World Heritage Committee, which is considering listing the reef on its "in danger" list at a meeting next year.
For me, once you've read through the science on the reef and climate change, the only valid criticism you might have for the US President's statement is that he may have been too optimistic.
The long arm of climate change might already have a grip on the future of world's most iconic coral reef system.
LOAD-DATE: November 25, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
218 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 25, 2014 Tuesday 5:57 AM GMT
Turnbull contradicts Abbott on ABC cuts - politics live;
Labor supports the government's bill to share intelligence between agencies and the defence forces, as fallout from the ABC cuts announcement continues. Follow live
BYLINE: Gabrielle Chan
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 6656 words
block-time published-time 4.57pm AEST
The senate is debating a matter of public importance on:
The lack of strong environmental policies to address climate change or safeguard natural resources in Victoria.
block-time published-time 4.37pm AEST
While we were noting the fun in the lower house, across the hall in the senate question time, defence minister David Johnston was dumping on South Australian shipbuilder ASC.
The context is that the government had promised before the last election to build 12 new submarines in Adelaide. Now it appears the government favours a Japanese company. Although ASC is a potential Australian builder, but it appears the defence minister does not think much of their capabilities. (Notwithstanding its board member Sophie Mirabella.)
Johnston said ASC does not know the government's "top end requirements" for the contract.
They have never designed a submarine at ASC...let's get real here. This is not for people looking for a job. This is a professional program which is about national security and we will take the advice of the national service chiefs not somebody looking for a job...
Labor asked: Why has minister resorted to trashing the hard working men and women of the Australian shipbuilding industry to justify his broken promise?
Johnston said ASC had not delivered on submarines in 2009 and had delivered over-budget on a contract for Air Warfare Destroyers .
You wonder why I am worried about ASC and what they are delivering to the Australian taxpayer? You wonder why I wouldn't trust them to build a canoe? Because what they have done on Air Warfare Destroyers I have had, and Mathias Cormann have had to repair.
block-time published-time 3.39pm AEST
National MP and parliamentary secretary Michael McCormack answers Chris Bowen's prosecution of the "matter of public importance" over the Abbott budget. McCormack is a former journalist. He is talking about the state of the budget left after the previous Labor government, noting "we would all love to fund the ABC to the level it is now". It just is not possible.
Let's not get caught up over an interview on SBS the night before the election...Let's not get too cute about a few cutbacks to some orgnaistions that need it.
block-time published-time 3.32pm AEST
Turnbull contradicts Abbott on ABC cuts
Lenore Taylor reports an interesting schism between the communications minister and the prime minister.
Malcolm Turnbull has denied funding cuts to the ABC are an "efficiency dividend" because the government first ensured the broadcaster had the capacity to make the savings without any cuts to programming.
In an interview with Guardian Australia, the communications minister said the ABC had announced programming changes as part of its budget cuts because it was using the government as a "bogey man" to give it "cover for changes it wanted to make anyway".
Tony Abbott has repeatedly said the cuts to ABC funding do not contradict his pre-election promise that there would be "no cuts to the ABC" because they were really an efficiency dividend, similar to that imposed across government agencies.
block-time published-time 3.25pm AEST
Chris Bowen is arguing a matter of public importance, that is:
The House was informed that Mr Bowen had proposed that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely, "The Abbott Government's unfair Budget damaging Australia's economy".
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 3.26pm AEST
block-time published-time 3.25pm AEST
Daily total of (Labor) members punted under 94A = 12.
block-time published-time 3.22pm AEST
The Macklin death stare.
Jagajaga MP Jennny Macklin is evicted under standing order 94A. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 3.20pm AEST
I heard him say it Madame Speaker!
Education minister Christopher Pyne during question time. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 3.18pm AEST
Malcolm Turnbull spoke about "the vapours" from opposition surrounding the cuts to the ABC.
Turnbull references the Shorten ABC interview, in which he did not rule out cutting the ABC if Labor is in government.
Shorten then makes a personal explanation. He denies Abbott's claim that he (Shorten) said 'you will find out when we come to government' across the chamber under the microphones.
Then Christopher Pyne gets up to urge the Speaker to look at the tape.
It is not in order for the leader of the opposition to make a bald face lie to the parliament. I heard him say 'you will find out when we come to government'.
Anthony Albanese then insists Pyne withdraws. Then Albanese asks Speaker Bronwyn Bishop if she is aware she has gone down in the parliamentary record books for throwing out more members than any other speaker in Australian history.
Today Bishop threw out the 250th member since the Coalition came to government 14 months ago.
I am perfectly well aware of what occurs in this chamber and I would point out that if there was not disorderly conduct it would not happen, says Bishop.
block-time published-time 3.07pm AEST
A government question to Christopher Pyne on the construction industry, giving him a chance to dump on the CFMEU.
Chris Bowen asks Joe Hockey about the Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, due in December. Remember Hockey has conceded now that the government does have a revenue problem, that is not enough money coming in the door. Wayne Swan had used the revenue problem for the deficit problem, which the then opposition ridiculed.
Hockey bats on.
Another government question to justice minister Michael Keenan, on the joint state-federal police taskforce in Victoria examining corruption in the CFMEU following on from the trade union royal commission.
The point of the Keenan question is linking Victorian Labor with the CFMEU.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 3.21pm AEST
block-time published-time 2.58pm AEST
Shorten to Abbott : I refer to the PM's remarks at the 50th anniversary of the The Australian newspaper where he said no paper more closely corresponds to the spirit of Australia. Does PM therefore agreement with the judgment in the Weekend Australian that said that his leadership is languishing, flaky and insipid?
Abbott slowly rises and then says if Shorten is quoting the Oz, it gives him (Abbott) the right to quote Paul Kelly,
the prince of political historians.
block-time published-time 2.53pm AEST
Joe Hockey gets a government question on how the East West Link will cut driving times.
Labor's Tony Burke asks in a point of order about the suitability of the questions given "it is clearly ironic" to ask the Treasurer about someone driving a car.
There is no way this is in order, says Burke.
Sit down or leave, says Speaker Bishop.
Eight Labor members have been punted already.
block-time published-time 2.49pm AEST
Are Turnbull and Abbott hanging out together more often?
Tony Abbott with communications minister Malcolm Turnbull arriving for question time. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 2.49pm AEST
block-time published-time 2.47pm AEST
"You are a grub & he is a liar" Wayne Swan fires up during #QT@gabriellechan@GuardianAushttp://t.co/V71t6nA2V5pic.twitter.com/X1JS616sgR
- Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) November 25, 2014
block-time published-time 2.47pm AEST
Shorten to Abbott : Asks if Abbott will reverse his decision to cut the pay and conditions of the Australian Defence Forces. Ping Jacqui Lambie.
Adjectives like brave and courageous are used. But,
We cannot pay people everything we would like to pay. We cannot pay people everything that they deserve.
block-time published-time 2.44pm AEST
A government question to treasurer Joe Hockey on the share float of Medibank Private.
The Medibank Private float is the third biggest initial public office share listing in the world this year. And we have delivered it in Australia. It is a core policy principle of the Coalition that we as a government should stick to our knitting, that we should be focussed on delivering essential services for the community and when the government owns a business that business should be set free to compete in the market place.
block-time published-time 2.42pm AEST
Abbott: Deep regret of ABC job reductions
Plibersek to Abbott : Yesterday referring to the PM's cuts to the ABC, Senator Abetz said "Nobody has lost their job." With the announcement yesterday that 400 ABC staff would lose their jobs, how can the government continue to deny that it's broken promises are hurting Australians?
Abbott:
Obviously I deeply regret the fact that changes which the ABC management have made will... produce job reductions. I deeply regret that. But if the deputy leader of the opposition was as concerned about jobs as she says she is, or as she claims to be, why don't they support the East West Link in Melbourne? There's 7,000 jobs in the East West Link.
block-time published-time 2.39pm AEST
Barnaby Joyce gets a government question on the effect of the China Free Trade Agreement on the horticulture and viticulture industries.
Joyce lists the tariffs for citrus going from 11-12% done to zero and mentions the seat of Barker turns water into wine. (It has the Coonawarra).
Then we are back onto the Labor leadership.
block-time published-time 2.35pm AEST
Member for batman David Feeney, lit by a beam of sunlight before #QT then 94-Aed @GuardianAus@gabriellechanpic.twitter.com/1lM0LMN8oq
- Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) November 25, 2014
block-time published-time 2.34pm AEST
Another question on the China Free Trade Agreement to industry minister Ian Macfarlane.
Then Shorten to Tony Abbott : how many Victorians will lose their jobs because of the PM's broken promise (on ABC cuts)? Abbott:
The leader of the opposition just said across the table you will find out where our cuts are when we come to government. You will find out what our cuts are when we come to government. What arrogance! What incredible arrogance!
Now Abbott is reading from Australian journalist Paul Kelly's book about Shorten's part in the Labor leadership wars.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 2.34pm AEST
block-time published-time 2.30pm AEST
The member for Indi Cathy McGowan asks the agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce :
The agriculture sector relies on programs such as the ABC Bush Telegraph to connect, inform, education and prosper. For the sector to take advantage of the economic opportunities that would exist under the free trade agreement, everyone needs to be connected around Australia. Minister, would you please ask the ABC board to consider the needs of regional Australia when developing programs to replace Bush Telegraph.
Joyce:
I note obviously that the ABC is an integral part of regional Australia. Of course the ABC, like every other department, has had to deal with the curse of the Labor Party.
Joyce says he will keep in touch with the ABC board and
Mr Scott has full responsibility for what happens in regards how he deals with the cuts.
Or was that an efficiency dividend.
block-time published-time 2.25pm AEST
Jason Clare to Tony Abbott : This morning the Liberal member for Grey ( Rowan Ramsey ) referred to the PM's now infamous promise of no cuts to the ABC and SBS. And he said: "That is not the greatest piece of footage I've seen". The PM would wish he hadn't made that exact statement. Does the PM agree with the member for Grey and does he now wish he never made that exact statement?
I dare say the member for Lily (Wayne Swan) wishes he hadn't said the four years of surplus as I announce tonight. I wish that a deficit which the Labor Party said was $30 billion had not blown out to almost $50 billion.
There is a kerfuffle when Swan interjects and Speaker Bishop asks him to withdraw. The former speaker Anna Burke takes issue with her not treating both sides equally. Health minister Peter Dutton is also forced to withdraw.
block-time published-time 2.19pm AEST
A government question to trade minister Andrew Robb on the China free trade deal.
He is making the point that the Chinese have felt that all the investment goes from China to Australia and not the other way. The FTA, says Robb, will open up China to Australian companies, particularly service companies.
block-time published-time 2.17pm AEST
Speaker Bronwyn Bishop has already given a number of warnings.
Shorten asks Abbott about his pre-election promise when asked in August 2013, "will the condition of the budget be an excuse for breaking promises?" Abbott told the reporter: "We will keep the promises we make".
This is someone who Julia Gillard couldn't trust, someone who Kevin Rudd couldn't trust, and now he wants to make trust an issue, says the PM.
Abbott says the budget was worse than he thought.
If the Leader of the Opposition does not like the options the government is proposing, if he wants to be fair dinkum, if he wants to avoid the charge of hypocrisy or even fraud, he should tell us exactly what he has in mind.
Shorten asks to table the transcript of Abbott's August 2013 commitment as
proof of his lack of fair dinkumness.
block-time published-time 2.08pm AEST
A government question on the China Free Trade Agreement to Tony Abbott.
He repeats the four election promises of removing the carbon tax, building roads, stopping boats and getting the budget under control.
By way of contrast to Labor's continued attack on his broken promises.
block-time published-time 2.06pm AEST
Members claimed that the deficit was going to be $30bn but it was closer to $50bn, says Abbott. Under the circumstances we found ourselves in, it was important to make savings.
This is a definite change in tack from Tony Abbott, who had denied the promise and is now suggesting the broken promise was a result of the state of the budget.
block-time published-time 2.03pm AEST
Question Time. Woot.
Shorten to Abbott: Somebody was on SBS saying there will be no cuts to the ABC and SBS. Who was that?
Of course I made that statement, says Abbott, to loud applause from Labor.
block-time published-time 1.59pm AEST
Christopher Pyne has commented on the Freya Newman/Frances Abbott case.
I'm not convinced the sentence in the Freya Newman case sends a clear message that breaching another's privacy is wrong #auspol
- Christopher Pyne (@cpyne) November 25, 2014
block-time published-time 1.58pm AEST
Coalition joint party room
Tony Abbott addressed the troops this morning at the joint party room meeting. The times were difficult, he said, but the government had remained a little sea of calm in a tumultuous storm.
This has been a difficult and, at times tumultuous year, but the tumult has all been external to the government. At the centre, the government has been stable and competent. It has not, unlike the previous government, been a government effected by tumult and that's what the people want.
Abbott said the government had delivered on promises and therefore members should be:
satisfied with the past year and optimistic about the next 12-18 months. In the next 12-18 months, we will see a number of dividends of our decisions.
The dividends, he said, were the NBN would be rolling out faster (than otherwise) and infrastructure spending.
There are one or two barnacles still on the ship but by Christmas they will have been dealt with, said Abbott.
(Barnacles remain unnamed. ABC? Budget? Higher education deregulation?)
Our historical mission is to show that the chaos of the Rudd-Gillard years is not the new normal.
In a bold prediction, Abbott said the Victorian election was winnable and it should be a referendum on the CFMEU, which he described as "a criminal organisation in large measure".
A lot of meeting was taken up discussing the cuts to the ABC.
One member suggested the regional cuts were a case of political payback by Mark Scott.
One member suggested Triple J should have been cut because it wasn't that popular.
One member suggested the whole of the ABC should put out to tender.
One member from northern Tasmania suggested the ABC was Hobart centric and Sydney centric.
One member suggested that the ABC
should be more like the average Australian than the average Greens voter".
Communications minister Malcolm Turnbull talked about efficiency dividend, arguing the Lewis review found there were opportunities for the ABC to make savings without an effect on programming.
Turnbull accused Scott of "using this opportunity as a cover to do things that he has wanted to do for a long time".
It has been a workers' collective for quite some time, said Turnbull.
Thanks to Daniel Hurst for his reportage.
block-time published-time 1.25pm AEST
A large prime minister at the ABC rally.
"Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world like a Colossus, and we petty men walk under his huge legs." #ABCcutspic.twitter.com/4sL6GyLzYn
- Graham Perrett (@GrahamPerrettMP) November 25, 2014
block-time published-time 1.23pm AEST
Out of the joint party room, from my country colleague Rob Harris of the Weekly Times.
One coalition mp told the party room the ABC should have cut things like Triple J because nobody listens to it.
- Rob Harris (@rharris334) November 25, 2014
block-time published-time 1.19pm AEST
Penny Wright says under the bill, the Intelligence Services Act is changed to make it clear that Australia's overseas spy agency - Australian Secret Intelligence Service (Asis) - can help the ADF in support of military operations and dilutes the procedural safeguards relating to the grant of emergency ministerial authorisations.
We are debating a bill that may lead to ASIS being involved in the targeted killings of Australian citizens fighting in Iraq and Syria. And the Australian Greens have listened to experts in the space who say that such killings raise significant and difficult questions of domestic policy, human rights and international law.
If these features of schedule 2 are pursued, the Australian Greens has proposed an amendment that would specifically prohibit ASIS from engaging in any conduct that would amount to torture in accordance with Australia's obligations under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
block-time published-time 1.15pm AEST
Penny Wright says schedule 1 of the bill makes control orders easier to get. Control orders can restrict where a person goes, who they talk to, how and when they can communicate with the outside world and whether they can work.
They can apply to people who have not been charged with a criminal offence, or even be suspected of harbouring a criminal intent.
Wright says critics believe the control orders could not only be used against those with extremists but to prevent engagement in online media, online banking, community or religious meetings, or religious activities such as attendance at a mosque.
block-time published-time 1.11pm AEST
The debate has begun on the counter-terrorism amendment bill No 1 2014. Labor has supported the government's bill to share intelligence between agencies and the defence forces.
The Greens senator Penny Wright says the bill is only the latest to add to:
an impressive collection of rushed, poorly crafted national security legislation pushed through this place by the government and despite all their rhetorical protestations, supported by the opposition.
She says it is a bill that professes to protect Australians while trampling on their freedoms, without scrutiny by academics, multiparty senate committees or an independent security monitor. (That job - which oversees security legislation - has been left vacant since April this year at a time when the most contentious changes have occurred in decades.)
We have stood in this place late at night - when the press gallery is empty and the nightly news has gone to air - and witnessed the government push draconian national security legislation through this place without proper scrutiny. Without adequate time for senators to know exactly what they are voting for or against. Without a full understanding of the unintended consequences for our freedom of association, of speech, of movement, of the press.
block-time published-time 12.55pm AEST
#It'sNick'sABC.
Independent MP Nick Xenophon at a rally calling for the government not to cut funding to the ABC. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 12.35pm AEST
Friends, Romans, countrymen (and women)
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten at a rally calling for the government not to cut funding to the ABC. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Mike Bowers
block-time published-time 12.31pm AEST
Oh to be a fly on the backs of the Nats. What would we hear about the ABC?
Nationals Parliamentary team gathered this morning to swear the oath to stop violence against women @WhiteRibbonAustpic.twitter.com/epTstXacmr
- Darren Chester MP (@DarrenChesterMP) November 24, 2014
block-time published-time 12.28pm AEST
The bell has been rung on the Medibank Private share float. The shares opened at $2.22. Finance minister Mathias Cormann has made some remarks on the float.
It has long been the government's policy to sell Medibank Private because in our judgement, Medibank Private, in private ownership will perform even better as a business and also in particular and importantly for its policyholders, than it has been able to do in government ownership. We also take the view that in 2014, there no longer is a public policy case for government ownership of a private health insurance business.
Cormann said the proceeds of $5.679 billion exceeded the government's expectations.
That capital which has been released from Medibank Private will now be reinvested in job-creating productivity enhancing infrastructure as part of our plan to build a stronger more prosperous economy where everyone can get ahead.
block-time published-time 12.18pm AEST
Coalition backs intelligence sharing on Australians overseas
Attorney general George Brandis has confirmed publicly that the government will support the recommendations of a parliamentary report, giving the green light to the sharing of intelligence information with the defence forces overseas.
This is the add-on to the national security laws and clarifies that intelligence services like the Australian Intelligence and Security Service can share information on Australians overseas, such as foreign fighters. Potentially it opens the way to Australian forces targeting Australian fighters.
Debate on the bill is expected to begin in the senate at 12.30pm.
block-time published-time 12.12pm AEST
Just back to Bill Shorten one more time on the ABC cuts, which he calls an effective censorship of independent broadcasting.
It has been there for us when ever and every day of the year. We know the anthem of the ABC News, it is indeed an alternative anthem of Australia.We say very clearly Tony Abbott, if you choose to go ahead with these cuts, if you continue to wage war on the public broadcaster of this country, if you ask the Australian people to choose between the ABC and Tony Abbott and his team, we will choose the ABC.
block-time published-time 12.05pm AEST
Back to the Leyonhjelm Imperial Tobacco press conference. Daniel Hurst has produced this report with an amusing exchange on the topic of smoking.
David Leyonhjelm and Andrew Gregson have fronted the media in Canberra to raise concern about a reported increase in illicit tobacco use in Australia.
Leyonhjelm is the Liberal Democratic Party senator who wants cigarette taxes to be reduced and says he gets "nowhere near enough" donations from the tobacco industry.
Gregson is the head of corporate affairs at Imperial Tobacco and says the industry wants the government to "take the problem seriously and to better resource the law enforcement personnel that are combatting the illicit problem in Australia".
They released a report by KPMG, commissioned by the big tobacco companies, indicating the level of illicit tobacco consumption has grown from 13.5% to 14.3% of total consumption between July 2013 and June 2014 - equating to $1.2bn foregone in excise tax revenue.
The report also pointed out that overall tobacco consumption had decreased since the last report.
Leyonhjelm : Happy to take questions, or have a smoke, if you like.
Q: Mr Gregson, how many people die from cigarette smoking ever year?
Gregson : Ah, that's a question for the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
Q: What do you accept?
Gregson : We accept that there are health ramifications for adults who choose to use tobacco problems. Of course with the illicit tobacco trade those that are involved in it, the organised criminal gangs that are part of the import and distribution of it, don't take into account the health considerations that the tobacco manufacturers do vis a vis health warnings and whether they're selling to minors or not."
Q: How many deaths are caused every year?
Gregson : I can't answer your question.
Q: Why not?
Gregson : It's an Institute of Health and Welfare question. It's not something the tobacco companies ...
Leyonhjelm : Does it matter? Does it matter that people die from tobacco? The tobacco companies, I don't think anybody disputes that people die from tobacco. The issue is not about smoking, the issue is whether it's a government-created crime or a legal activity. So legal smoking [of] Mr Gregson's company's products is legal. If the government wanted to stop people from dying from smoking, they'd ban smoking, ok? That's a no brainer. What we're talking about here is which tobacco products do they buy? Do they buy the ones imported legally on which taxes are paid by Mr Gregson's company or do they buy the ones that are imported illegally, which the only thing that is paid on them sometimes is GST, nothing else, at substantially lower cost, and without the warnings on the packet.
Q: Does passive smoking cause health effects?
Leyonhjelm : Of course it does.
Q: So do you stand up for the rights of people not to be affected by passive smoking?
Leyonhjelm : If it's legal and you're an adult - you're not a child - do you want somebody else to tell you how to live your life? I don't think so. Most people don't. Some people chose to live like a child, but most adults don't. If you don't want to smoke, don't smoke.
block-time published-time 11.56am AEST
Bill's warming to the topic. #peakzinger
Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, Joe Hockey and that figure of hilarity, the great petitioner Christopher Pyne, the man who got elected to parliament to petition his own cabinet. What we say to all of you is you have underestimated real Australia.
block-time published-time 11.54am AEST
Bill Shorten again:
Never has a politician in modern history pinned so much of his own character to the issue of not telling lies in politics. He was merciless in opposition. He made himself a bigger man than he is by saying he would be different. Now, what we have is this attack on the ABC.
block-time published-time 11.49am AEST
Bill Shorten is speaking to the ABC rally.
Just when you thought that the climate change denialism, the attack on the sick and the vulnerable with their GP tax, just when you thought that cutting pensions, when you thought that doubling and tripling the cost of going to university, now this rotten government has now, I would submit to you, issued the final straw - beyond which people will go no further. They now want to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from our ABC.
block-time published-time 11.46am AEST
The ABC rally is starting with Labor's communications spokesman Jason Clare. Shalailah Medhora reports around 150 people out the front. A fair few are Labor and Greens MPs.
The ABC is the most loved trusted public institution in this country.... Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull ignore that at their peril....The Labor party will fight you on that.
Clare must not have read Australian commentator Nick Cater this morning.
For much of the time the majority of Australians are blithely disengaged from the ABC and, with the diversity of content and the manner of its delivery expanding all the time, it seems unlikely that Aunty (as we once called it) will ever be close to our hearts again.
block-time published-time 11.40am AEST
It's amazing what you can buy around Canberra.
Senator David Leyonhjelm with a box of illegal tobacco products procured within range of parliament house. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia Senator David Leyonhjelm with head of corporate affairs for Imperial tobacco Andrew Gregson, holding illegal tobacco products. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.47am AEST
block-time published-time 10.57am AEST
I just can't go past the comments of chief of army David Morrison who spoke this morning in support of White Ribbon Day. He repeated the facts that one woman is killed every week at the hands of a partner or ex and said as a soldier and an Australian man, he recognised something needed to be done to change the paradigm.
If we lost one person to a shark every week there would be, as there already are, laws to do something about it and yet in this country, I think we are too slow to address what is an absolute existential issue for us and that is domestic violence against women and children.
He said when women or children died as a result of domestic violence, equal attention was given to the perpetrator of violence.
There are ways we tell ourselves about ourselves that are not helpful for dealing with these issues in modern contemporary Australian society..Society needs to ask why doesn't he stop rather than why is she staying.
Morrison again questioned the effect of the Anzac legend in creating a male culture in Australia which played into the narrative on many issues, including domestic violence and gender. He lauded the ABC drama Anzac Girls but said too many Anzac stories give emphasis to the masculine rather than the feminine.
Anzac is a great Australian narrative. There was extraordinary bravery by the troops that went ashore in Turkey in 1915. But the stories can be seen in a particular way. They can be seen as focussing on the fact that it was largely men, largely white men, largely white Anglosaxon men but there were other men and women serving in support of those soldiers. I think what we run the risk of is compounding this idea that Australia is a man's country, is a man's world where men get ahead, where men are promoted on their potential, women are only ever promoted on their proven performance. I don't think we are going to progress as a nation if that is the case.
Here I am a white Anglosaxon 58-year-old male who has never been discriminated against in his life on any matter. It's a man's world and it shouldn't work that way. What happens when it's a man's world is that women become not just victims but silent victims or ignored victims.
block-time published-time 10.34am AEST
No conviction will be recorded against a 21-year-old whistleblower for accessing confidential files that revealed the prime minister's daughter, Frances Abbott, received an undisclosed $60,000 scholarship.
Freya Newman, a former part-time librarian at the Whitehouse School of Design, was given a two-year good behaviour bond.
Newman appeared in Sydney's Downing Centre local court on Tuesday after pleading guilty in September to one count of unauthorised access to restricted data.
Newman accessed student records that showed Frances Abbott had attended the design school on a "managing director's scholarship" at the recommendation of the college's chairman and Liberal party donor, Les Taylor.
block-time published-time 10.28am AEST
Freedom fighter and Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm will release a new KPMG report showing that the illicit tobacco trade is booming at 10.30am.
He is joining Andrew Gregson, head of corporate affairs, Imperial Tobacco. The senator is a well-known campaigner to free smokers of taxes. His party also receives funding from tobacco companies.
Leyonhjelm's catchphrase for his party is:
The Liberal Democratic party supports low taxes, less regulation, free markets, individual liberty, and an end to the nanny state.
Apparently those freedoms don't include freedom from passive smoking, freedom from dying of lung cancer or non-smoking taxpayers' freedom from paying for the health effects of tobacco.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.56am AEST
block-time published-time 10.14am AEST
A White Ribbon handshake.
Tony Abbott with Bill Shorten supporting White Ribbon Day. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 10.11am AEST
The attorney general George Brandis has reportedly accepted all the recommendations of a parliamentary report regarding new national security laws which would allow spy agencies to collect information on Australians overseas and share it with the defence forces.
The powers potentially allow Australian defence forces to target Australian foreign fighters.
The government had tried to piggy back the powers onto the second tranche of the national security laws - known as the foreign fighters bill. But Labor, which supported both tranches, wanted to see the laws separately. Now that the government has accepted the laws, Labor is understood to support the bill.
block-time published-time 9.53am AEST
There has been a White Ribbon Day brekkie again this morning where there was a large presence of military forces. It follows on the event yesterday which attracted a phalanx of police commissioners. Here is Tony Abbott :
The presence of our armed forces, the presence of our police is a sign that tough, strong men protect others, they don't persecute them. That the toughest and the strongest men are peacemakers, not brutes. The toughest and the strongest men are there to be gentlemen as well.
Abbott stated that no one in any position of authority or influence "is ever going to make excuses for domestic violence".
I've got to say that there has been progress. A generation or so back often people in authority would say things are just domestics, as it were. Well, there's no such thing as violence which is excused because it takes place in the home as opposed to in the street. Thank God we are past all of that. We have seen the error of our ways there.
Abbott points out the reality of one woman is killed by a partner or ex every week. One in three will experience violence at some stage and one in five will experience sexual violence in her life.
I am the father of three daughters, I am the brother of 3 sisters. I want them to have all the opportunities that I have had in every sense but above all else I want them to live in a safe world. I want them to be able to trust the people they love. This is what they're all about. It's about ensuring that as far as is humanly possible, all of us can trust the people we love to give us the respect, the safety and the support that everyone deserves.
block-time published-time 9.20am AEST
Bill Shorten answered Abbott's allegations about ABC/SBS, saying Labor, ABC and SBS funding would rise.
Four hundred people lost their jobs yesterday - these vicious cuts are happening today, under this government and its budget of broken promises. Labor would never had made these cuts. Under Labor, ABC had its biggest funding increase in 25 years. Who knows what the state of the ABC will be in 2016 under this government, but under Labor funding for the ABC and SBS will go up. That's because Labor believes in the importance of public broadcasting, including the critical role it plays in emergencies and for regional Australia.
block-time published-time 9.08am AEST
If you were with us yesterday, you would have read a little about the changes immigration minister Scott Morrison wants to make to the Australian Citizenship Act, which, in his words would raise the bar by introducing a "good character test" in order to obtain Australian citizenship.
Shalailah Medhora has been digging into the legislation which was introduced in a big hurry and pushed through to the Senate, where it will receive a little more scrutiny. Here is a snap of Shalailah's story :
People could be denied Australian citizenship or have their citizenship revoked, under certain conditions, if they are ordered to undertake drug rehabilitation or a residential program for the mentally ill, under legislation that passed the House of Representatives on Monday.
The Australian citizenship and residential amendment bill will face a challenge in the Senate, where Labor and the Greens oppose it.
The legislation lists a number of clauses that the immigration minister can use to revoke or deny citizenship, including a pending, current or previous criminal conviction, or a court-ordered confinement to a psychiatric institution due to criminal offences.
It also states that people who have court orders to undertake a residential drug rehabilitation scheme or a residential program for the mentally ill, can be barred from becoming Australian.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.59am AEST
block-time published-time 8.57am AEST
Given it is going to be the talk of the day, here are the words of Tony Abbott's election promise.
Last night, the prime minister was trying to turn the attack back towards Bill Shorten.
Look, as is now clear from what Mr Shorten said to ABC Statewide Drive in Victoria, Mr Shorten is not being straight and upfront with the Australian people. He is complaining about something which he intends to do himself. He says the government is cutting the ABC, well, he has his own cuts in mind for the ABC.
This just shows that Bill Shorten is all complaint and no solution. That's what he is. He is running a national complaints bureau. He's not trying to come up with serious credible policies to deal with the issues that are facing Australia right now.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.59am AEST
block-time published-time 8.45am AEST
Morning all,
The ABC cuts and the Senate situation are the moving parts of the political agenda on this lovely Canberra day. Jacqui Lambie has revealed she will speak to Tony Abbott about the defence force pay issue over the next 24 hours. There seems to be a little equivocation within the government on this. Senate leader and Lambie's least favourite person, Eric Abetz, said early yesterday there was no room for movement on defence pay. Though later in the day, there have been more soothing signs reportedly coming from within the government, so we will have to wait for the next Lambie doorstop.
But let's cast aside the nebulous back room briefings to consider the concrete things on the political agenda. Joint party room and caucus meetings will definitely occur this morning so parliament will not sit until midday.
In the meantime, people are descending on Parliament house to protest the cuts to the ABC, which will see 400 people lose their jobs and a regional rationalisation. The Community and Public Sector Union has organised the event at 11.30am so we will have all the pictures from Mike Bowers in the front paddock.
The cuts to regional ABC services are the focus with the National party directing their anger at managing director Mark Scott. National senator Bridget McKenzie said he could have chosen cuts to Ultimo or breakfast television rather than the bush. Fellow Nat John Williams has chosen a different defence, saying he was disappointed with the regional cuts but the budget was much worse than the Coalition had expected. Therefore, we all have to take the pain. Williams did concede it was a broken promise but more in sorrow than in anger.
Tony Abbott and Bill Shorten have again spoken at a White Ribbon Day breakfast to highlight the campaign against domestic violence. I will bring you their speeches shortly.
Stay with Bowers and I for the day and join the conversation on Twitter with us @gabriellechan and @mpbowers.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.00pm AEST
LOAD-DATE: November 25, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
219 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 25, 2014 Tuesday 4:16 AM GMT
Australian Foreign Minister says reef not in danger but what do her own scientists say?;
World leading coral scientist attacks Foreign Minister saying Australians deserve better representation at international climate meeting
BYLINE: Graham Readfearn
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1790 words
Australia's Foreign Minister Julie Bishop should apologise for claiming the Great Barrier Reef is "not in danger" from climate change, according to enough scientific evidence to form a small coral atoll.
Sorry. Too glib?
When the minister representing Australia at the next major United Nations Climate Change negotiations appears unwilling to accept the advice of her own government science and reef management agencies, then it's time to worry.
Indeed, one of the world's leading marine biologists and coral reef experts has told me he thinks Australian's deserve better. But we'll get to that in a bit.
This sorry tale starts with a speech to Australia's University of Queensland from US President Barack Obama, who said the "incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened" by climate change and he'd quite like it if his kids could see that natural glory for themselves, thanks very much.
In response, Bishop said she had made contact with the US Secretary of the Interior and with the White House to apparently correct the record. The GBR wasn't in danger at all. Obama had been poorly briefed. She said:
Of course the Great Barrier Reef will be conserved for generations to come and we do not believe that it is in danger.
Trade Minister Andrew Robb backed his cabinet colleague saying Obama's speech had been "misinformed" and "unnecessary". He said:
I don't think others should be coming and lecturing us on climate change... [The speech] gave no sense of the first world, high-class efforts that Australia is making successfully on that issue.
The reef isn't in danger? High-class efforts? Let's go brief ourselves.
Climate dangers
Obama was talking about the GBR in the context of climate change. So what do the Government's own scientists say about that (because surely if you're a government minister, that's where you would get your briefing material from)?
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is the government agency charged with monitoring the health of the reef and managing activities within the area (like massive expansions in coal export facilities, for example).
Earlier this year GBRMPA released its Outlook Report 2014. Here's what it said:
Climate change remains the most serious threat to the Great Barrier Reef. It is already affecting the Reef and is likely to have far-reaching consequences in the decades to come. Sea temperatures are on the rise and this trend is expected to continue, leading to an increased risk of mass coral bleaching; gradual ocean acidification will increasingly restrict coral growth and survival; and there are likely to be more intense weather events. The extent and persistence of these impacts depends to a large degree on how effectively the issue of rising levels of greenhouse gases is addressed worldwide. The impacts of increasing ocean temperatures and ocean acidification will be amplified by the accumulation of other impacts such as those caused by excess nutrient run-off.
The Australian Institute of Marine Sciences is a government-backed agency whose scientists have published widely on the health of the reef since the 1970s. I've written about their work on the health of the reef before.
One famous 2012 study led by AIMS scientists found that between 1985 and 2012, the reef had lost about half of its coral cover.
AIMS has also outlined how other studies from its scientists and those of others around the world have shown that ocean acidification (caused by increased carbon dioxide in atmosphere through burning fossil fuels) and increasing sea surface temperatures are already slowing the growth rates for some coral species.
As Australia's tropical marine research agency, AIMS faces the significant challenge of filling current knowledge gaps about how the Reef will respond to ongoing climate change. Without global commitment and implementation of greenhouse gas reductions strategies, the Reef's marine climate will change. This knowledge will underpin global and Australian policy and management decision-making, helping to ensure the ongoing health of our reefs and providing a basis for developing mitigation options if they are needed in the future.
You have to wonder what AIMS scientists think of their efforts to "underpin" policy decisions in the wake of the Foreign Minister's apparent "knowledge gap".
Bishop has explained that she felt Australia's efforts to reduce localised impacts on the reef - such as reducing run-off, managing coastal developments and reducing dredging - had not made it to Barack Obama's desk.
But the Australian Academy of Sciences has recently assessed those very same measures outlined in the draft Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan.
Does the academy agree that the reef is "not in danger"? Here's what it says in a submission about the draft plan :
While the draft Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan contains many positive elements, based on overwhelming scientific evidence the Academy concludes that, in its present state, the draft plan is inadequate to achieve the goal of restoring or even maintaining the diminished Outstanding Universal Value of the reef. ... The draft 2050 plan makes no mention of climate change mitigation or targets for reducing the impacts of climate change, identified as the greatest threat to the reef in both the 2009 and 2014 Great Barrier Reef outlook reports.
Climate meeting
At the last UN climate change meeting in Warsaw, Australia was criticised for failing to send a minister for the high-level sessions that take place in the second week of the negotiations.
This year, the Australian Government is sending Bishop to Peru for the next major meeting in a couple of weeks time.
The key UN agency informing governments on the science and the impacts of climate change is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Perhaps Bishop might want to read the chapter about Australasia on the plane on the way over? Here's some interesting bits.
Hotspots of high vulnerability by 2050 under a medium emissions scenario included: Significant loss of biodiversity in areas such as alpine regions, the Wet Tropics, the Australian southwest, Kakadu wetlands, coral reefs, and sub-Antarctic islands. ... Some potential impacts can be delayed but now appear very difficult to avoid entirely, even with globally effective mitigation and planned adaptation: Significant change in community composition and structure of coral reef systems in Australia, driven by increasing sea surface temperatures and ocean acidification; the ability of corals to adapt naturally to rising temperatures and acidification appears limited and insufficient to offset the detrimental effects. ... The combined impacts of warming and acidification associated with atmospheric CO2 concentrations in excess of 450 to 500 ppm are projected to be associated with increased frequency and severity of coral bleaching, disease incidence and mortality, in turn leading to changes in community composition and structure including increasing dominance by macroalgae. Other stresses, including rising sea levels, increased cyclone intensity, and nutrient-enriched and freshwater runoff, will exacerbate these impacts.
But what about those local management measures that Bishop seems keen to promote? The ones the Australian Academy of Sciences think are inadequate. What does the IPCC chapter on Australia think of those?
Management actions to increase coral reef resilience include reducing fishing pressure on herbivorous fish, protecting top predators, managing runoff quality, and minimizing other human disturbances, especially through marine protected areas. Such actions will slow, but not prevent, long term degradation of reef systems once critical thresholds of ocean temperature and acidity are exceeded and so novel options, including assisted colonization and shading critical reefs have been proposed but remain untested at scale.
One of the world's most cited scientists on climate change and coral reef systems is Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, a marine biologist and director of the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.
He was also a co-ordinating lead author of the recent IPCC report chapter looking at the oceans.
I asked Hoegh-Guldberg what he made of the recent political statements that the reef is "not in danger". Here's what he told me:
What's astounding about this statement from Julie Bishop and those following from Andrew Robb is that the warnings on climate change are not only in the world's best science journals or in the IPCC reports, but that are in government documents from agencies like the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Barack Obama was merely repeating the science that he had been briefed on - and he had been obviously briefed very well. Now Julie Bishop has a lot on her plate. She either was not briefed very well or she had not been briefed at all, because her statement runs at odds with the peer reviewed science. You couldn't get a statement from the minister that was any more 180 degrees away from actual reality. One would hope that she will get a better briefing and do a lot more homework on the issue [before she arrives in Lima]. The Australian people expect more from their foreign representation at these meetings than what we might have here. We were given a fairyland statement about a really important issue. That IPCC process is extremely robust in finding a scientific consensus but it is also conservative. They are saying it is almost certain that corals will disappear as major parts of ecosystems by the middle of this century. Barack Obama rightly realised this was an issue for his daughters and their children and I think he was completely right to point out the sad sate of affairs. Scientists are now making observations not only on the Great Barrier Reef but elsewhere in the world that corals are growing less vigorously and taking longer to recover from cyclones. Now was Julie Bishop poorly briefed or is there some political dialogue going on here where it is inconvenient for Australia to have this major treasure going downhill.
That political dialogue could be the conversations Australia is currently having with the United Nations World Heritage Committee, which is considering listing the reef on its "in danger" list at a meeting next year.
For me, once you've read through the science on the reef and climate change the only valid criticism you might have for the US President's statement is that he may have been too optimistic.
The long arm of climate change might already have a grip on the future of world's most iconic coral reef system.
LOAD-DATE: November 25, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
220 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 25, 2014 Tuesday 12:09 AM GMT
Obama's climate change envoy: fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground;
Todd Stern claims the world will have to forgo developing reserves of oil, coal and gas in order to solve global warming
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 720 words
The world's fossil fuels will "obviously" have to stay in the ground in order to solve global warming, Barack Obama's climate change envoy said on Monday.
In the clearest sign to date the administration sees no long-range future for fossil fuel, the state department climate change envoy, Todd Stern, said the world would have no choice but to forgo developing reserves of oil, coal and gas.
The assertion, a week ahead of United Nations climate negotiations in Lima, will be seen as a further indication of Obama's commitment to climate action, following an historic US-Chinese deal to curb emissions earlier this month.
A global deal to fight climate change would necessarily require countries to abandon known reserves of oil, coal and gas, Stern told a forum at the Center for American Progress in Washington.
"It is going to have to be a solution that leaves a lot of fossil fuel assets in the ground," he said. "We are not going to get rid of fossil fuel overnight but we are not going to solve climate change on the basis of all the fossil fuels that are in the ground are going to have to come out. That's pretty obvious."
Last week's historic climate deal between the US and China, and a successful outcome to climate negotiations in Paris next year, would make it increasingly clear to world and business leaders that there would eventually be an expiry date on oil and coal.
"Companies and investors all over are going to be starting at some point to be factoring in what the future is longer range for fossil fuel," Stern said.
The UN, in its landmark IPCC climate science report last year and in another report earlier this month, warned that the world is close to blowing through a carbon budget, which would lead to warming of above 2C.
The UN Environment Programme warned last week that global emissions must peak in the next decade, fall by half by 2050, and then decline to zero to remain within that budget.
Obama said in an interview last June that the US was going to have to start getting off fossil fuel - but he has also simultaneously pursued an "all of the above" energy strategy that has ramped up domestic oil and gas production.
In an interview for the Year of Living Dangerously series, Obama said: "We're not going to be able to burn it all. Over the course of the next several decades, we're going to have to build a ramp from how we currently use energy to where we need to use energy. And we're not going to suddenly turn off a switch and suddenly we're no longer using fossil fuels, but we have to use this time wisely, so that you have a tapering off of fossil fuels replaced by clean energy sources that are not releasing carbon ... But I very much believe in keeping that 2C target as a goal. " Such statements, coupled with Obama's support for natural gas industry, have frustrated and confused some campaigners.
At the same time, Obama has pursued an ambitious domestic and international climate change agenda - despite opposition from Republicans who now control both houses of Congress after the mid-term elections.
In a surprise announcement, Obama and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, announced last week they would take steps together to curb emissions.
A few days later, on the eve of the G20 summit in Brisbane, Obama announced the US would give $3bn to an international fund to help poor countries cope with climate change.
Stern, in comments to reporters following his appearance, said the moves had helped to build momentum ahead of the meetings in Lima. "You are not suddenly going to make the hard issues all vanish," he said. "I don't know whether you are going to see any shift in Lima, for example."
China and other countries would be watching closely to see whether Obama can move forward, with the Republican leadership in Congress already threatening to block the main pillar of his climate plan, cutting carbon pollution from power plants.
But the envoy said the deal between the world's two biggest carbon polluters - and antagonists as Stern called them - had improved the atmosphere going into the last stretch of negotiations for reaching a climate deal in Paris at the end of next year.
"We will see what transpires but this is a very big step," he said. "Generally if you are holding stock in the Paris negotiations your stock will have gone up after this announcement."
LOAD-DATE: November 25, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
221 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 25, 2014 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
Committed to Carbon Goals
BYLINE: By JOE NOCERA
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; OP-ED COLUMNIST; Pg. 27
LENGTH: 808 words
Since the early 1990s, the consensus view in the climate science community has been that if the world is going to escape the most catastrophic consequences of climate change, it needs to keep the average global temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels. A few years ago, the Presidential Climate Action Project issued a report in which it estimated that to meet that goal, global carbon dioxide emissions would need to be reduced by 60 percent by 2050 -- and the industrialized world would need to reduce its emissions by 80 percent.
This would seem, at first glance, an impossible task. Until, that is, you meet a man named David Crane. He is the chief executive of NRG Energy, the largest publicly traded independent power producer in the country. When he took over a decade ago, NRG was just emerging from bankruptcy. Today, it is a Fortune 250 company, with 135 power plants capable of generating 53,000 megawatts of power.
NRG, Crane told an audience at the Aspen Ideas Festival this summer, is the country's fourth-largest polluter. ''We emit 60 or 70 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year,'' he said, mainly because a third of its power is generated by coal-fired plants. ''I'm not apologetic about that because, right now, owning those plants and operating those plants are critical to keeping the lights on in the United States.''
But then he quickly added, ''We have to move away from that.'' And he has, reducing the company's carbon footprint by 40 percent in the decade that he's run the company. And, on Thursday, as The Times reported, he committed NRG to reducing its carbon emissions by 50 percent by 2030 and 90 percent by 2050.
These are terribly ambitious goals, but Crane is not some pie-in-the-sky dreamer. Although he sees climate change as an ''intergenerational issue'' -- a way of ensuring the future for our children and grandchildren -- he is also a pragmatic man running a publicly traded company. He firmly believes that the technology exists to make his ambitious goals possible, and that the real problem is the refusal of the rest of the power industry to adapt and change.
Crane likes to say that when he first started hearing about carbon emissions, he didn't view it all that seriously. ''To be frank,'' he said in that same Aspen presentation, ''I thought this is just the next pollutant that we have to deal with.'' But once he got religion -- and realized, as he put it, that power producers like NRG are ''the biggest part of the problem'' -- he was determined to make his company a leader in reducing carbon.
One of his early moves was to apply for a license to build a new nuclear power plant. (It already co-owns one nuclear plant.) But the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan in 2011 scotched those plans, and NRG wound up writing off more than $300 million. NRG also invested in a wind company, which it sold three years later ''because we got a little disenchanted with the way that the wind technology was moving.''
So how is he planning to get that 90 percent reduction? One answer is solar power, in which NRG has invested some $5 billion. Crane is a big believer in the eventual importance of solar, both for consumers -- he foresees a day when millions of Americans rely on solar as their primary power source -- and for power companies. Even so, Crane told me that solar generates only 3,000 megawatts of the company's potential for 53,000.
And then there's coal. When I asked Crane if he would have to eliminate coal to reach his goals, he said no. Coal, he said, will continue to play a big role. A carbon tax would be a great way of reducing emissions. But that is politically impossible.
So, instead, the carbon will need to be captured and then put to some good use. At one of its Texas power plants, NRG is teaming up with JX Nippon of Japan in a $1 billion joint venture to build a carbon-capturing capacity, which it expects will capture 1.6 million tons of carbon each year -- some 90 percent of the plant's emissions. He is also convinced that that carbon will eventually be used to create liquid fuel or get embedded in cement. ''We could rebuild America's roadways with embedded carbon from coal.''
He has another reason for wanting to be out in front on climate change. He says it will make his company more attractive to investors -- and consumers. The day is going to come, he believes, when climate change risk will be something investors factor in to their investment decisions. And he believes that the next generation of consumers will demand clean energy. He views the disinvestment campaign now taking place on college campuses as a harbinger of things to come.
''It's like Wayne Gretzky said,'' he told me before hanging up the phone. ''We are skating where the puck is going, rather than where it is now.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/opinion/joe-nocera-committed-to-carbon-goals.html
LOAD-DATE: November 25, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Op-Ed
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
222 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 24, 2014 Monday
Late Edition - Final
Resorts Left High and Very Dry
BYLINE: By JOHN BRANCH
SECTION: Section D; Column 0; Sports Desk; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1523 words
TWIN BRIDGES, Calif. -- At ski areas up and down the jagged peaks of the Sierra Nevada, where California's drought has hit historic proportions and the broader threat of climate change hangs heavy over an industry built on optimism, the man-made snow is flying.
A couple of resorts have managed to open a few runs. But beyond the occasional strip of white, the mountains remain mostly bare.
''From a business perspective, I'm a farmer,'' said John Rice, general manager of Sierra-at-Tahoe, a ski area south of Lake Tahoe. Last week, he had a small pile of man-made snow, a mountain of naked runs and a hope to open in early December. ''I'm not in the ski business,'' Mr. Rice said. ''I farm snow.''
The season is just starting, and snow may yet pile high, but the harvest in California the last three years was bleak, and the globe's long-range forecast is grim. Fortunes are as unpredictable as ever, with bigger swings of weather variability. While snow levels have decreased drastically in the West and are generally on decline elsewhere in the United States, the drop is hardly uniform. Last week, for example, the Buffalo area set records with an early snowstorm.
The ski industry, which expects higher temperatures, less snow and shorter seasons in the coming decades, is seen a bit like the canary in the coal mine of climatology.
''This is a very serious and as strategically significant a topic as you can get,'' said Andy Wirth, president and chief executive of Squaw Valley, a major resort near Lake Tahoe.
No front line of skiing is fighting with the immediacy of resorts in California. Resorts big and small are combating the trends with bigger investments in snow making ($8 million worth at Squaw Valley and neighboring Alpine Meadows in the last three years) and more activities less reliant on snow, whether indoors in the winter or outdoors in the summer.
They are moves to attract more customers in the short run, but also hedges in a high-stakes gamble with the future of snow.
Last year's snow pack at the University of California, Berkeley's Central Sierra Snow Lab, in the heart of California ski country near Lake Tahoe, topped out at a depth of 133 centimeters (about 52 inches), the second lowest of the last 90 years. With most of the snow arriving late in the season, skier and snowboarder visits in this area were down by 25 percent from the season before, according to the National Ski Area Association.
Similarly meager snow packs in 2012 and 2013 have exacerbated the statewide drought, with ramifications far beyond the ski industry. A fourth lackluster season would be unprecedented, according to snow records kept since 1879.
Some dismiss the snow drought as an anomaly, pointing to near-record snowfalls in the Sierra Nevada as recently as 2011. When viewed on graphs, the data is spikier than ever, but the trend lines point down.
''It might well be that there will be more snow again on the mountains of California in the next few years,'' Christoph Marty, a researcher for Switzerland's Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research, wrote in an email. ''However, this does not change the fact that there will be less snow in the long run.''
Troubling for ski areas now is the rising percentage of precipitation that falls as liquid, not solid, even in winter, said Randall Osterhuber, a researcher at the snow lab. In the late 1970s, about 82 percent of the annual precipitation at the lab, with a relatively high elevation of 6,900 feet, fell as snow. These days, it is about 67 percent.
If the debate about global warming still echoes around the world of politics, it has long since faded at ski areas.
''I don't know of anybody in the industry who is saying that climate change is not an issue for us,'' said Bob Roberts, president and chief executive of the California Ski Industry Association. ''If you're below 6,000 feet, it's a real challenge.''
The industry was among the first to push for awareness of the threat of global warming, long before the turn of the century, led by resorts like Aspen, in Colorado. The National Ski Area Association adopted a climate-change policy in 2000. In 2007, the snowboarder Jeremy Jones founded Protect Our Winters to further rally the winter-sports community.
Squaw Valley's Formal Sustainability Initiative, a report on the ways it intends to reduce its own carbon footprint and promote advocacy among its customers -- ''Our intention is to lead the fight against climate change,'' the report says -- acknowledges that the company expects changing conditions.
''Ski seasons are projected to be 3-6 weeks shorter by the 2050s'' in the Sierra Nevada, the report says.
''Will ski areas be around in 30 to 40 years? The answer is yes,'' Mr. Wirth said. ''Will we look different than we do today? Yes. But we look dramatically different now than we did 40 or 50 years ago, too.''
They may look more like Big Bear Mountain Resorts in Southern California. About a two-hour drive east from Los Angeles, Big Bear can open -- and sometimes has opened -- 100 percent of its 420-acre terrain at Bear Mountain and Snow Summit with nothing but man-made snow. It has built a vast snow-making operation since the 1960s, a strategy that has propped up ski areas on the East Coast for decades.
''We're certainly better positioned than most areas for this possibility, the warmer temperatures and less snowfall,'' Chris Riddle, Big Bear's vice president of marketing, said. ''We've lived that our entire existence.''
But making snow requires two things in short supply in California: temperatures below freezing, generally, and ample water. And despite advances in efficiency in recent years, snow making contributes to global warming, representing 15 to 20 percent of Squaw Valley's carbon footprint, for example, according to Squaw Valley officials.
Temperatures at Big Bear two weekends ago allowed the resort to run its snow-making equipment for 30 hours, Mr. Riddle said.
At full capacity, it pulls between 6,000 and 7,000 gallons of water per minute from nearby Big Bear Lake, at a cost of about $3,000 an hour, Mr. Riddle said, to the municipal water district -- about $90,000 for last weekend's snow-making spurt. During dry seasons, the resort can spend millions on water -- a cost reduced greatly by unpredictable bursts of natural snow.
Days before Mammoth Mountain opened this month, on the strength of man-made snow, crews were drilling wells for water. The resort Heavenly says it has the West's largest snow-making operation, its huge mountain dotted with enough hydrants to get about three-quarters of its terrain open with man-made snow.
But ski areas played down the effects of heavy water use during a drought. They consider their system relatively closed, with minimal consumptive use. The water is used to make snow, then mostly melts back into the ground or runs off into reservoirs to be used again.
Boreal Mountain Resort, a small ski area along Interstate 80 near Lake Tahoe, has many enviable qualities, including a relatively high altitude and north-facing slopes. But it has invested heavily in snow-making equipment since 2007 and competes annually to be the first California area to open. It won the race this year, on Nov. 7, operating one lift and one run. It closed again for a few days, waiting for colder conditions to make more snow, and reopened last week.
Two years ago, Boreal opened Woodward Tahoe, a 32,000-square-foot indoor action-sports gym, with year-round use for everyone from Olympic athletes to cheerleading squads. Ski areas everywhere are adding nonsnow activities, like mountain-bike parks and zip-line courses, especially since 2011, when federal legislation allowed expanded uses for ski areas on government land.
''We have to get our heads out of the snow,'' Boreal's general manager, Amy Ohran, said. ''A lot of discussions are about seasonal diversity, and expanding revenues in areas that are not dependent on snow. Our hearts are in skiing and snowboarding, and we want to see that succeed. But we have to cast a bigger net.''
Still, snow is the thing. Sierra-at-Tahoe relies mostly on snow from the sky. And when it falls, the resort has a plan to make the most of it.
''Every flake counts,'' Mr. Rice, the general manager, said.
It will plow the parking lot into stripes, use snowblowers to load the snow into trucks, and carry it onto the mountain. It will erect fences on its slopes, even park trucks in strategic places, to capture the blowing snow in piles to be redistributed. The trails, for now, look like steep golf fairways, groomed of the clutter of rocks and logs, the grass cut short by mowers.
When Sierra-at-Tahoe built a sprawling stone deck off its base lodge last year, it considered heating it, to avoid the hassle of snow removal. Instead, the deck is a 30,000-square-foot capturing device for snow to be used on the slopes.
Last year, employees formed a bucket brigade to move snow from the protected shade of the forest onto the slopes for skiers.
''It's not like it matters if I have six feet,'' Mr. Rice said. ''That would be nice. But it's what the top six inches is like. If it's soft and white, that's what people want.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/sports/skiing/as-snow-fades-california-ski-resorts-face-a-brown-future.html
LOAD-DATE: November 24, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: Scott Cizek, the snow-making supervisor at Boreal Mountain Resort, near Lake Tahoe in California, checked artificial snow last week. (D1)
Boreal Mountain Resort near Lake Tahoe has invested heavily in snow-making equipment since 2007, a growing necessity as the California ski industry expects higher temperatures and less snow.
A run with artificial snow in the Sierra Nevada, where skier and snowboarder visits fell by 25 percent last season.
A dry snow gauge at the University of California, Berkeley's Central Sierra Snow Lab. Last year's snow pack was the second lowest in 90 years. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY MAX WHITTAKER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES) (D8)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
223 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Learning Network)
November 24, 2014 Monday
6 Q's About the News | Imagining a Glacier National Park Without Glaciers
BYLINE: SHANNON DOYNE
SECTION: EDUCATION
LENGTH: 152 words
HIGHLIGHT: How quickly is the landscape and ecosystem at Glacier National Park changing, and why?
In "Climate Change Threatens to Strip the Identity of Glacier National Park," Michael Wines writes about decreasing glaciers in the Rocky Mountains.
WHERE is Glacier National Park?
WHEN did the park have 150 ice sheets?
HOW many does it have today?
HOW many might it have 30 years from now?WHAT are some of the changes the park and people who live nearby have experienced as a result of the glaciers melting?
HOW much of the water supply in the American West comes from the Rocky Mountains?
WHO is Daniel B. Fagre?
HOW does he define the term "glacier"?
WHY is the loss of snowpack a concern in the Rocky Mountains?
For Higher-Order Thinking
WHAT evidence does the article present about how rising temperatures have affected the glaciers and year-round snowfields?
WHY do you think wildlife is at significantly higher risk than humans at this point in time regarding the vanishing glaciers?
LOAD-DATE: November 25, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
224 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 23, 2014 Sunday 9:01 PM GMT
World bank to focus future investment on clean energy;
World Bank will only fund coal projects in cases of 'extreme need' due to the risk climate change poses to ending world poverty, says Jim Yong Kim
BYLINE: John Vidal
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 738 words
The World Bank will invest heavily in clean energy and only fund coal projects in "circumstances of extreme need" because climate change will undermine efforts to eliminate extreme poverty, says its president Jim Yong Kim.
Talking ahead of a UN climate summit in Peru next month, Kim said he was alarmed by World Bank-commissioned research from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, which said that as a result of past greenhouse gas emissions the world is condemned to unprecedented weather events.
"The findings are alarming. As the planet warms further, heatwaves and other weather extremes, which today we call once-in-a-century events, would become the new climate normal, a frightening world of increased risk and instability. The consequences for development would be severe, as crop yields decline, water resources shift, communicable diseases move into new geographical ranges, and sea levels rise," he said.
"We know that the dramatic weather extremes are already affecting millions of people, such as the five to six feet of snow that just fell on Buffalo, and can throw our lives into disarray or worse. Even with ambitious mitigation, warming close to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels is locked in. And this means that climate change impact such as extreme heat events may now be simply unavoidable."
But the bank, which has traditionally been one of the world's largest funders of fossil fuel projects and has been accused of adding to the problem of climate change, said it could not ignore the poorest countries' need for power.
"We are going to have to focus all of our energy to move toward renewable and cleaner forms of energy. But on the other hand we believe very strongly that the poorest countries have a right to energy and that we not ask these energy poor countries to wait until there are ways of ensuring that solar and wind power can provide the kind of base load that all countries need in order to industrialise," said Kim.
"The stakes have never been higher.We cannot continue down the current path of unchecked growing emissions. The case for taking action now on climate change is overwhelming, and the cost of inaction will only rise," he said.
Kim was backed by Rachel Kyte, World Bank group vice president and special envoy for climate change. "It will only be in circumstances of extreme need that we would contemplate doing coal again. We would only contemplate doing [it] in the poorest of countries where their energy transition as part of their low-carbon development plan means that there are no other base load power sources available at a reasonable price," she said.
"The focus is on being able to ramp up our lending and the leveraging of our lending into all forms of renewable energy. That's the strategy. It includes everything from all sizes of hydro through to wind, to solar, to concentrated solar, to geothermal. I think we're invested in every dimension of renewable energy. That is what we're concentrating on."
The bank's report showed that with a 2C warming, soya and wheat crop yields in Brazil could decrease 50-70%. "In the Middle east and north Africa, a large increase in heatwaves combined with warmer average temperatures will put intense pressure on already scarce water resources with major consequences for food security. Crop yields could decrease by up to 30% at 1.5-2C and by almost 60% at 3-4C. Pressure on resources might increase the risk of conflict," it said.
Climate change posed a substantial risk to development and cutting poverty, the report said, adding that action on emissions need not come at the expense of economic growth.
But the bank made no commitment to cut funding for oil or other fossil fuel exploration. Analysis earlier this year by Washington-based NGO Oil Change International showed that the bank had funded $21bn (£13bn) of fossil fuel projects since 2008, including $1bn of oil and other fossil fuel exploration in 2013.
"The bank has taken an important first step in essentially stopping its support for coal-fired power plants, but climate change is caused by more than just coal," said Stephen Kretzmann, director of Oil Change International. "The vast majority of currently proven fossil fuel reserves will need to be left in the ground if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change, but last year the bank provided nearly $1bn in support for finding more of these unburnable carbon reserves."
LOAD-DATE: November 23, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
225 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 23, 2014 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
Climate Change Threatens to Strip the Identity of Glacier National Park
BYLINE: By MICHAEL WINES
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 20
LENGTH: 1348 words
GLACIER NATIONAL PARK, Mont. -- What will they call this place once the glaciers are gone?
A century ago, this sweep of mountains on the Canadian border boasted some 150 ice sheets, many of them scores of feet thick, plastered across summits and tucked into rocky fissures high above parabolic valleys. Today, perhaps 25 survive.
In 30 years, there may be none.
A warming climate is melting Glacier's glaciers, an icy retreat that promises to change not just tourists' vistas, but also the mountains and everything around them.
Streams fed by snowmelt are reaching peak spring flows weeks earlier than in the past, and low summer flows weeks before they used to. Some farmers who depend on irrigation in the parched days of late summer are no longer sure that enough water will be there. Bull trout, once pan-fried over anglers' campfires, are now caught and released to protect a population that is shrinking as water temperatures rise.
Many of the mom-and-pop ski areas that once peppered these mountains have closed. Increasingly, the season is not long enough, nor the snows heavy enough, to justify staying open.
What is happening here is occurring, to greater or lesser extents, in mountains across the North American West. In the Colorado Rockies, the median date of snowmelt shifted two to three weeks earlier from 1978 to 2007. In Washington, the Cascades lost nearly a quarter of their snowpack from 1930 to 2007. Every year, British Columbia's glaciers shed the equivalent of 10 percent of the Mississippi River's flow because of melting.
The retreat is not entirely due to man-made global warming, though scientists say that plays a major role. While the rate of melting has alternately sped up and slowed in lock step with decades-long climate cycles, it has risen steeply since about 1980.
And while glaciers came and went millenniums ago, the changes this time are unfolding over a Rocky Mountain landscape of big cities, sprawling farms and growing industry. All depend on steady supplies of water, and in the American West, at least 80 percent of it comes from the mountains.
''Glaciers are essentially a reservoir of water held back for decades, and they're releasing that water in August when it's hot, and streams otherwise might have low flows or no flows,'' Daniel B. Fagre, a United States Geological Survey research ecologist, said in an interview. ''As glaciers disappear, there will be a reduction in the water at the same time that demand is going up. I think we're on the cusp of bigger changes.''
But shrinking glaciers are only the visible symptom of much broader and more serious changes. ''We're a snow-driven ecosystem, and glaciers are just a part of that,'' Dr. Fagre said. ''The way the snow goes is the way our ecosystem goes.''
Lately, the snows are not going well.
Mountain snowpacks are shrinking. In recent decades, rising winter temperatures have increasingly changed snows to rain. Rising spring temperatures are melting the remaining snow faster.
''Imagine turning on your faucet in your sink and all your water runs out in an hour's time,'' Thomas Painter, a research scientist and snow hydrologic expert at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said in an interview. ''Loss of snowpack earlier in the year compresses runoff into a shorter period of time.''
Glaciers and year-round snowfields -- accumulations of snow in colder locations, like shadowed mountainsides, that never fully melt -- pick up the slack in summer. But they, too, are vanishing: In Glacier National Park, the number of days above 90 degrees has tripled since early last century, and the summertime span in which such hot days occur has almost doubled, to include all of July and most of August.
Winters are warmer, too: A century ago, the last brutally cold day typically occurred around March 5. By last decade, it had receded to Feb. 15.
Dr. Fagre, the park's resident expert on snowpacks, glaciers and climate change, can see the changes firsthand. Grinnell Glacier, one of the park's most studied ice sheets, feeds a frigid lake on the flanks of Mount Gould, more than 6,000 feet above sea level. ''At the beginning, we had a 25-foot-high wall of ice that we were actually concerned about from a safety standpoint,'' he said. ''And now the entire glacier simply slopes into the water, with no wall of ice whatsoever.
''All of that has melted just within the last 10 years.''
At Clements Mountain, with a summit some 8,800 feet above sea level, what used to be a glacier is now a shrinking snowfield surrounded by 30- and 40-foot heaps of moraine, stones piled up by the ice as it pushed its way forward. One recent fall day, freshets of melted snow tumbled over rock ledges and down hills, past stands of Rocky Mountain firs.
But that will change.
''This snowfield will vanish,'' Dr. Fagre said. ''When that happens, this whole area will dry up a lot. A lot of these alpine gardens, so to speak, are sustained entirely by waterfalls and streams like this. And once this goes, then some of those plants will disappear.''
For wildlife, Dr. Fagre said, the implications are almost too great to count. Frigid alpine streams may dry up, and cold-water fish and insects may grow scarce. Snowfall may decline, and fewer avalanches may open up clearings for wildlife or push felled trees into streams, creating trout habitats. Tree lines may creep up mountains, erasing open meadows that enable mountain goats to keep watch against mountain lions. A hummingbird that depends on glacial lilies for nectar may arrive in spring to find that the lilies have already blossomed.
Trekking across what is left of the Clements snowfield, Dr. Fagre unexpectedly encountered a long-clawed paw print: from one of perhaps 300 wolverines said to remain in the lower 48 states. These solitary, ferocious animals have come back after trappers nearly eliminated them decades ago, but conservationists and federal wildlife experts are sharply at odds over whether rising temperatures imperil them.
''Wolverines need deep snows to build their winter dens,'' Dr. Fagre said. ''I'm not sure what's going to happen to them.''
For people, the future is somewhat clearer.
Rising temperatures and early snowmelt make for warmer, drier summers as rivers shrink and soils dry out. That is already driving a steady increase in wildfires, including in the park, and disease and pest infestations in forests.
But in the long term, the ramifications are more ominous than a mere rise in fires or dying trees.
Moisture loss from early snowmelt is worsening a record hydrological drought on the Colorado River, which supplies water to about 40 million people from the Rockies to California and Mexico; by 2050, scientists estimate, the Colorado's flow could drop by 10 percent to 30 percent.
In the usually arid West, where reservoirs are vital, earlier and bigger snowmelt will disrupt the task of balancing water demand and supply. Experts anticipate an increase in disputes over water rights as a growing population competes for a shrinking resource. And farming, a major industry across much of the Rockies, will become even more of a gamble than fickle weather makes it.
Indeed, complications have already surfaced. Dennis Iverson runs a 140-head cow-and-calf operation on several thousand acres about 25 miles northeast of Missoula, Mont. Five hundred acres are hayfield, irrigated with water from the Blackfoot River about one and a half miles away.
Twenty years ago, the water flowed through an open ditch, and from the time the irrigation pumps were started on May 20, ''we were able to irrigate the whole ranch,'' he said. ''There was always enough water, even to do some irrigating in July and August.''
Now, Mr. Iverson starts the pumps on May 10, because a hotter spring has already dried out his pasture. The open irrigation ditch has been converted into an 8,000-foot underground pipe to prevent evaporation. ''If we hadn't done that, we wouldn't even be getting water to the ranch,'' he said. ''There's that much less water in the stream than there was 20 years ago.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/23/us/climate-change-threatens-to-strip-the-identity-of-glacier-national-park.html
LOAD-DATE: February 3, 2015
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: Upper McDonald Creek as seen from Going-to-the-Sun Road in Glacier National Park, in northern Montana. The shrinking of glaciers could drastically affect water supplies in the American West.
Daniel B. Fagre, a United States Geological Survey research ecologist, at the base of Clements Mountain. Using images from the 1880s, he is documenting the rate at which glaciers are disappearing. (A20)
A lateral moraine, above right, shows the edge of a glacier that has drastically receded from the base of Clements Mountain. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY LAUREN GRABELLE FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A26) MAPS (A26)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
226 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 22, 2014 Saturday
The International New York Times
India's Obligation on Climate
BYLINE: By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
SECTION: Section ; Column 0; Editorial Desk; EDITORIAL; Pg.
LENGTH: 404 words
The breakthrough announcement last week by the United States and China of a deal setting limits on greenhouse gases has offered new hope for a global agreement on climate change. The U.S.-China deal follows the European Union's ambitious pledge to reduce emissions by 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2030. Now the world needs India, already the world's third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, to add to the momentum. Without India on board, the best efforts of the rest of the world will not be enough. Which means that India must rethink its relationship with coal and redouble its investment in developing renewable energies.
India's long-held position is that it will not sacrifice eradicating poverty to limit carbon emissions. Nearly 300 million Indians have no access to electricity, and millions more live with regular power cuts and brownouts. India's current share of global greenhouse gas emissions is 7 percent, compared with a combined share of about 45 percent for the United States and China. But India's economy is growing fast, and the energy infrastructure India builds now will determine its capacity to rein in emissions over the next critical decades for climate change.
To its credit, India is making a big push for solar energy, and is home to Asia's largest solar plant. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has pledged to create a 50,000-strong ''solar army'' to help rapidly expand India's solar capacity -- and train job-hungry young Indians in the technologies of the future.
Unfortunately, India is also betting big on coal. In the last five years alone, India increased its coal power capacity by 73 percent. To fuel the new plants, India plans to double domestic coal production to one billion tons a year by 2019, and boost imports, notably from Australia. Pollution from India's coal plants -- largely unregulated and unmonitored -- kills up to 115,000 Indians a year, and costs India's economy as much as $4.6 billion. India's air is among the world's dirtiest.
It is in India's interest to act. The droughts and floods that are likely to result from unchecked climate change will hit India particularly hard. The next round of climate talks convene in Lima, Peru, on Dec. 1. India should be willing to join other major emitters by indicating, at least in broad terms, how much it intends to limit greenhouse gas emissions -- with details to be filled in at the climate summit meeting in Paris next year.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/22/opinion/indias-obligation-on-climate.html
LOAD-DATE: November 22, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Editorial
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
227 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 21, 2014 Friday 2:45 PM GMT
Green news roundup: Green Climate Fund, rhino deaths and plastic bags;
The week's top environment news stories and green events · If you're not already receiving this roundup, sign up here to get the briefing delivered to your inbox
BYLINE: Environment editor
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 290 words
News
· UK pledges £720m to climate change fund for poor countries· EU set to approve historic deal to cut plastic bag use· Billionaire founder of Ineos wants to start shale gas revolution in the UK· Polar code agreed to prevent Arctic environmental disasters· Kenya's iconic Nairobi national park is under threat, conservationists warn· Record 1,020 rhino killed in South Africa· CO2 emissions must be zero by 2070 to prevent climate disaster, UN says· EU court rules UK government must clean up dangerous air pollution· Spanish navy rams Greenpeace boat and injures activists
Blogs and comment
· George Monbiot: We need a new law to protect our wildlife from critical decline· Political consensus on climate change has frayed, says Ed Miliband· Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change· The Green Climate Fund is not a charity but an investment in our shared future· Local activists are paying with their life to protect their forests in Peru
Multimedia
· Red List: the world's most threatened species - interactive· Street artist captures UK wildlife in murals around London - in pictures· BBC Wildlife camera-trap competition winners - in pictures· Videos reveal how London looks from an eagle's point of view
Features
· Toyota hopes to recreate Prius success with hydrogen-powered Mirai· Icebreaker captain: 'if you come to grief, you're up there alone'· Is a ban on GM crops more harmful than growing them?· Merchants of Doubt film exposes slick US industry behind climate denial· Nasa animation shows stunning year in the life of carbon emissions
...And finally
· UK's first 'poo bus' hits the roadBritain's first 'Bio-Bus' powered entirely by human and food waste takes to the streets between Bath and Bristol
LOAD-DATE: November 24, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
228 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 21, 2014 Friday 7:13 AM GMT
Australia one of only four nations forecast to miss 2020 emissions target;
A UN report says Australia and just three other nations will not meet their pledge to reduce emissions by 2020
BYLINE: Oliver Milman
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 662 words
Australia is one of just four nations not on track to meet emissions reduction promises, a UN report has warned, while a US-based research firm has poured scorn on Tony Abbott's insistence that coal is "good for humanity."
A report by the UN Environment Programme states that the world should aim to be "carbon neutral" by 2070 at the latest. Exceeding a budget of just 1,000 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide would risk "severe, pervasive and in some cases irreversible climate change impacts".
In an analysis of each signatory to a UN goal to limit global warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels, the report found that just four nations - Australia, Canada, Mexico and the US - needed to do more to meet their respective emissions reduction targets by 2020.
The UNEP analysis finds that Australia is set to emit 710 million tonnes of CO2 in 2020. This is well above the 555 million tonnes it would emit if it were to meet a goal of a 5% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020, based on 2000 levels.
The report notes that Australia's Coalition government has "replaced carbon-pricing mechanism with Emissions Reduction Fund. This results in an increase in projected emissions for 2020."
After scrapping carbon pricing in July, emissions have risen in Australia, reversing a previous downward trend.
The replacement Direct Action policy, which the government claims will be more effective and a lesser burden on cost of living pressures, will start voluntary payments to businesses to reduce emissions from the first quarter next year. Independent analysis has cast doubt on whether Direct Action will meet the 5% emissions reduction goal.
The UNEP said countries could slash emissions through renewable energy and energy efficiency while maintaining economic growth.
Achim Steiner, executive director of UNEP, said there are "many synergies between development and climate change mitigation goals.
"Linking development policies with climate mitigation will help countries build the energy-efficient, low-carbon infrastructures of the future and achieve transformational change that echoes the true meaning of sustainable development."
In October, Abbott said coal was "good for humanity" because it would be used to lift millions of people out of poverty, In subsequent G20 talks, Abbott reportedly told international leaders he was "standing up for coal".
This position was directly challenged at the launch of the UNEP report in Washington DC. Andrew Steer, president of US development research organisation World Resources Institute, said Australia was wrong to view fossil fuels as the way to boost economic growth.
Steer said better technology and more efficient uses of resources were the best paths to alleviate poverty, claiming that US$19tn would be invested in renewable energy globally over the next 15 years. "We can't afford not to do it; the economic imperative is to act," Steer said.
The report presents just the latest climate change headache for the government. Julie Bishop, the foreign minister, has spoken out against a speech made by US president Barack Obama over the threat posed by climate change to the Great Barrier Reef.
In an apparent contradiction of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the government's own Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Bishop said the reef was not in danger and that a decline in water quality had been reversed.
Mark Butler, Labor's environment spokesman, said the UNEP report was evidence that the Direct Action climate policy wouldn't work.
"Tony Abbott is taking Australia backwards, while the rest of the world moves forward," he said. "The United Nations report demonstrates that under the carbon price mechanism, Australia's carbon pollution reductions reduced by 7% - for the first time in history.
"World leaders, including some of Australia's largest trading partners, have pledged to increase their emissions reduction targets. Tony Abbott would rather pay polluters to pollute and keep his head in the sand."
LOAD-DATE: November 24, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
229 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 21, 2014 Friday 4:28 AM GMT
Tony Abbott keeps digging himself in deeper, and it makes no sense;
The Abbott government is in untenable positions on climate change and broken election promises and it's time it took stock
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 1258 words
It's time for Tony - and Julie and Malcolm - to stop digging. The government is in a couple of truly untenable positions. It keeps digging itself in further.
Take climate change. Tony Abbott and senior ministers were deeply angry at Barack Obama's show-stealing climate change speech during the G20. We know because they have been briefing News Ltd columnists to that effect all week - including graphic accounts of how they rang up afterwards and yelled at state department officials for failing to give a "heads up" that the president was going to "dump on" the PM.
Putting aside for one second the extraordinary position we are in when a speech that calls for an ambitious global climate deal and points out Australia has a lot to lose from a warming climate is seen as "dumping" on our prime minister, let's think about how government ministers could have responded.
They could have tried to defuse the argument - responding to Obama's call by pointing out that Australia has promised a new longer-term emissions reduction target and will reveal it soon. In fact, as soon as they said that, they also chose to escalate the row with some embarrassingly stupid arguments.
The foreign minister, Julie Bishop, was doing the digging on this one - taking a direct swipe at Obama by saying he and his interior secretary clearly hadn't read a very excellent briefing provided to them about all the efforts Australia was taking to protect the Great Barrier Reef.
"Of course the Great Barrier Reef will be preserved for generations to come. We don't believe it is in danger," Bishop said, with complete certainty.
Perhaps as well as the report about how Australia is attempting to manage the impact on the reef of things like agricultural run-off and shipping activity from the development of enormous coal mines, Obama had also read the most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says (in chapter 25 - the one about Australasia):
"Recent extreme climatic events show significant vulnerability of some ecosystems and many human systems to current climate variability (very high confidence) ... for example, high sea surface temperatures have repeatedly bleached coral reefs in northeastern Australia (since the late 1970s) and more recently in western Australia."
Maybe the president had read the bit where it said: "Some potential impacts can be delayed but now appear very difficult to avoid entirely, even with globally effective mitigation and planned adaptation" including "significant change in community composition and structure of coral reef systems in Australia, driven by increasing sea surface temperatures and ocean acidification; the ability of corals to adapt naturally to rising temperatures and acidification appears limited and insufficient to offset the detrimental effects."
Maybe he was making the entirely obvious point that if the world does not continue, collectively, to reduce its greenhouse emissions, the reef will be harmed - no matter what decisions Australia takes about managing domestic impacts.
Even the government's own "outlook report", from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, found climate change posed the most serious threat reef. Did they not send the president that?
Obama's $3bn commitment to the Green Climate Fund in Brisbane was a little harder for Abbott to dig himself out of - having previously likened the fund to Australia's Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), or "Bob Brown Bank", which he is committed to abolish ( the government recently instructed the CEFC prepare its accounts for the mid-year economic statement on the basis that it will stop making investments on 31 December and cease to exist on 30 June.)
But Abbott could also have said he was thinking about a future contribution, which, Guardian Australia understands, the Department of Foreign Affairs actually was.
But no. Without even a flicker of irony, Abbott and Bishop again dug in further, arguing one reason Australia didn't intend to commit to the international Green Climate Fund was that it already had the domestic CEFC (neglecting to mention this was only because they haven't been able to get rid of it yet). They also pointed to the $2.5bn emissions reduction fund - also for domestic emissions reductions and therefore not relevant to the argument, and to foreign aid programs targeting climate mitigation in the Pacific region.
Now that even the Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, - the closest thing Australia has to an ally for its climate stance (except maybe Saudi Arabia) - has contributed $300m to the fund, it really seems time to stop digging.
The government points to the fact that Australia met its first Kyoto emissions reduction target - OK, we got a special deal and were allowed to increase our emissions by 8% when everyone else except Iceland had to decrease theirs, but who besides us fact-obsessives is going to remember that? And it insists we will meet our 2020 target, and no one can prove otherwise. Given the task is now only one-third what it was when it set up its Direct Action fund, and given we can "carry over" the extra abatement we got by overshooting our first generous target - who knows, it may even be right.
But the arguments with which Australia is now trying to berate America are truly ridiculous. And they are just drawing more domestic and international attention to our policy absences and inadequacies.
On the domestic front, there's the truthfulness issue - upon which the last government fell and which appears to be poisoning public attitudes towards this one.
If there is one thing that annoys voters even more than politicians telling lies, it's those same politicians pointing to previously invisible fine print to try to pretend that they haven't.
And yet this is exactly what the Abbott government has been doing - over its budget spending cuts and now over its promise not to cut funding to the ABC. It is mounting the entirely untenable proposition that none of this contradicts promises made before the election.
In the case of the ABC it was the communications minister, Malcolm Turnbull, defending the indefensible in the interests of backing in the position of the government.
"Well - well, look, you know, I mean, I've defended the prime minister on this today and earlier in the week. I think you've got to take his comments, which - look, I mean, what he said, he said, and, you know, it's there, it's on the record. But you've got to take that in the context. And I can only assume that what Mr Abbott was referring to or was thinking about, anyway, was the proposition that there would be cuts in - with the intent of reducing ABC services and we've ruled that out," he said, not sounding coherent or convincing.
Trailing by 10 percentage points in two-party preferred terms, the government is not short of advice about how to retrieve its political situation as it takes stock at the end of the political year.
According to conservative commentator Andrew Bolt, it has to "change or die". Some of his advice is probably good - to concentrate on the domestic agenda and to give up on some fights it cannot win. But Bolt also berates Abbott because "he's given up the fights for free speech and workplace reform, and dares not openly challenge the [global] warming hysteria." In other words, Bolt reckons the government should dig harder, be more ideological and intransigent.
I disagree. I think it would be better, politically and in the interests of good policy and general sanity, for the government to stop digging for a while.
LOAD-DATE: November 24, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
230 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 21, 2014 Friday 12:57 AM GMT
Great Barrier Reef: Julie Bishop sent US a briefing after Obama criticism;
Australian foreign minister's office sent White House a note explaining government actions to save the natural wonder
BYLINE: Katharine Murphy, deputy political editor
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 777 words
Julie Bishop has said she was not embarrassed by a speech Barack Obama gave at the G20 in Brisbane that urged prompt action to protect the Great Barrier Reef - but the Australian foreign minister confirmed her office sent the White House a briefing after the comments.
Bishop said on Friday the government did not believe the reef was in danger - a comment that contradicts the scientific consensus that it is.
The 2014 outlook report from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority said: "Climate change remains the most serious threat to the Great Barrier Reef. It is already affecting the reef and is likely to have far-reaching consequences in the decades to come."
Unesco will consider next year whether to list the reef as officially in danger.
Bishop has taken the unusual step of pushing back publicly against the Obama administration in an effort to minimise the domestic political fallout from the recent step-change on climate action by the US.
Bishop told the ABC on Friday morning her office had sent a briefing to the White House after Obama's speech in which he highlighted the vulnerability of the reef to the effects of climate change.
The foreign minister said she had met the US secretary of the interior, Sally Jewell, in Sydney before the G20 and outlined "in considerable detail Australia's commitment and capacity to preserve the Great Barrier Reef".
"And I pointed out that we were working with the heritage committee and with Unesco to ensure that the barrier reef remains as healthy and protected as is humanly possible," Bishop told the ABC.
"I pointed out that mining and drilling and gas exploration are banned by law from the Great Barrier Reef region and that we had acted to prevent the dumping of capital dredge waste in the marine park. Indeed, [environment] minister Greg Hunt announced that during the World Parks Congress, that we will ban that by law."
Bishop said the briefing went to specific policy actions Canberra was taking with Queensland "to not only halt but reverse the decline in the quality of water entering the Great Barrier Reef, which is one of the causes of coral degradation".
She said the Abbott government was very confident current policies would preserve and conserve the reef for generations to come and that was the message she had conveyed during her meeting with Jewell.
Bishop said she was "surprised that it appeared President Obama hadn't been briefed on that".
In a separate interview with Sky News, Bishop said the government did not believe the reef was in danger. "Of course, the Great Barrier Reef will be conserved for generations to come," she said.
The Abbott government has been put on the back foot by the recent announcement that the US and China will work collaboratively to reduce their emissions, and by comments from world leaders during and after the G20 summit highlighting the importance of global action to address climate change, including contributions to the international Green Climate Fund.
Even Canada, a country that previously lined up with Australia against contributions to the global climate fund, has now come on board with a $300m contribution. On Thursday in Berlin 30 countries pledged $9.3bn to the fund.
The foreign minister also took exception to a recent report from the United Nations suggesting Australia would not deliver on its emissions reductions commitments. "I don't accept Australia won't meet its target. I don't know where this report came from because they certainly didn't consult with agencies in Australia."
Bishop said the UN's assessment seemed to be predicated only on the repeal of Labor's clean energy scheme, and not on the replacement policies the Coalition had enacted, including the Emissions Reduction Fund.
Labor's foreign affairs spokeswoman, Tanya Plibersek, said on Friday the diplomatic pushback against the US was "petulant", and underscored how isolated Australia now was on climate change. Plibersek said in Sydney the Abbott government had tried to keep climate change off the G20 agenda, but the prime minister had been outflanked by other world leaders.
Labor's environment spokesman, Mark Butler, said the scientific consensus on the vulnerability of the reef was clear.
"Just this year, the World Heritage Committee 'noted with concern' the Abbott government's lack of action to protect the Great Barrier Reef, and went on to recommend the reef for consideration on the list of 'world heritage in danger' sites in 2015," Butler said on Friday.
"It seems it's only the Abbott government that fails to accept that climate change is going to take a significant toll on our Great Barrier Reef, unless we act now," he said.
"It is embarrassing."
LOAD-DATE: November 24, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
231 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 21, 2014 Friday
Late Edition - Final
In Step to Lower Carbon Emissions, China Will Place a Limit on Coal Use for 2020
BYLINE: By EDWARD WONG
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 4
LENGTH: 673 words
BEIJING -- China plans to set a cap on coal consumption in 2020, an important step for the country in trying to achieve a recently announced goal of having carbon dioxide emissions peak by around 2030.
The State Council, China's cabinet, released details of an energy strategy late Wednesday that includes capping coal consumption at 4.2 billion tons in 2020 and having coal be no more than 62 percent of the primary energy mix by that year.
Worldwide, coal burning for industrial use is the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions, which are the biggest catalyst of global climate change. China is the biggest emitter of greenhouses gases in the world, and it uses as much coal each year as the rest of the world combined.
In theory, coal consumption might increase beyond 2020, but some researchers say economic trends show the rate of growth in coal use slowing in coming years and peaking about 2020. That means the State Council's timeline is consistent with the findings of those researchers. The numbers announced Wednesday might be further formalized in China's next five-year plan, whose details will be released around March.
Last week, President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China announced a joint pledge to cut or limit carbon dioxide emissions from his country.
China said it would reach an emissions peak ''around 2030'' and energy from sources other than fossil fuels would make up 20 percent of the total mix by that year. That announcement was praised by environmental advocates as a significant political move by the two nations.
Environmental advocates on Thursday welcomed the State Council's announcement this week. But, as with the ''around 2030'' pledge on peak emissions, they said China could make a greater effort -- for example, China could cap coal consumption even earlier or at a lower level.
''We think it's definitely a positive sign, in line with what they've said they're going to do,'' said Alvin Lin, China climate and energy policy director in the Beijing office of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group based in New York.
But ''we'd like to see it a bit lower than that,'' he said, ''if you're trying to meet the air pollution and air quality targets that they have set, and if you consider all the other environmental and health impacts of coal and the greenhouse gas emissions of coal.''
Some Chinese officials began tackling the problem of coal burning with vigor in 2013, when the public outcry over toxic smog -- Chinese cities are among the world's most polluted -- reached a high pitch. In September 2013, the government announced that provinces in populous parts of eastern China would try to cut coal consumption.
Analysts for Greenpeace East Asia said the amount of coal consumed in the first nine months of 2014 might actually have dropped by 1 to 2 percent compared with the same period last year, based on data from a national coal industry association. The miasmic air remains poisonous, though; the United States Embassy air monitor in Beijing labeled the air quality on Wednesday and Thursday ''hazardous.''
Last year, China consumed 3.61 billion tons of coal, and coal made up 66 percent of the primary energy mix. Li Shuo, a researcher at Greenpeace East Asia, said those figures indicate that China's goals for 2020 should be more ambitious.
"What they laid out is a reference point, and then they will work from there to squeeze out more stuff,'' he said.
China's recent announcements on coal consumption and the 2030 emissions peak could weaken arguments in the United States by opponents of President Obama's climate change policy, who often ask why America should act if China is not committed, said Alex L. Wang, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who studies Chinese environmental policy and regulations.
''Opponents of climate change regulation in the U.S. have long used China's emissions as an excuse for inaction on the U.S. side,'' he said. ''Last week's joint announcement is the beginning of the end for this line of argument.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/business/energy-environment/china-to-place-limit-on-coal-use-in-2020.html
LOAD-DATE: November 21, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Workers at a coal mine in Shanxi Province. Last year, China consumed 3.61 billion tons of coal. (PHOTOGRAPH BY GILLES SABRIE FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
232 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 20, 2014 Thursday 10:36 PM GMT
Julie Bishop rebukes Barack Obama over Great Barrier Reef;
After US president drew attention to climate change's effect on reef, foreign minister says he 'overlooked' Australian actions
BYLINE: Katharine Murphy, deputy political editor
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 580 words
Australia's foreign minister Julie Bishop has publicly rebuked the US president Barack Obama for drawing attention to the vulnerability of the Great Barrier Reef because of climate change, and failing to acknowledge Australia's remedial action.
In an interview with the ABC's 7.30 Report from New York on Thursday night, Bishop said a recent speech by the American president in Brisbane "overlooked" Australian actions in preserving the reef.
She said there was an issue with the president's remarks.
"We are demonstrating world's best practice in working with the World Heritage Committee to ensure that the Great Barrier Reef is preserved for generations to come," Bishop said on Thursday night.
"I think that president Obama might have overlooked that aspect of our commitment to conserving the Great Barrier Reef."
Bishop said she understood why the Queensland government had issued a rebuttal to Washington. The Queensland premier Campbell Newman blamed green groups for spreading misinformation.
In a speech in Brisbane at the G20 last weekend, the US president said he had not yet had time to go to the Great Barrier Reef, but he wanted it to be protected so his daughters and generations to come could see the natural wonder. "I want that there, fifty years from now."
"I know that there has been a healthy debate in this country about (climate change)," the president said. "Here in the Asia Pacific nobody has more at stake when it comes to thinking about, and then acting on, climate change.
"The incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened. Worldwide this past summer was the hottest on record."
The pointed comments from the visiting president followed the unveiling of a landmark deal mid-month between America and China to reduce their greenhouse gas output.
China has agreed to cap carbon emissions for the first time, and the US has committed achieving to deep reductions by 2025. The agreement is regarded as a game changing development for global climate talks.
The cooperation between the world's two major emitters deeply embarrassed the Abbott government on the eve of the Brisbane G20 summit, and the comments in Brisbane from the American president compounded the political discomfort for the Coalition. The government was furious with the intervention.
Labor and the Greens have moved expeditiously to capitalise on the embarrassment domestically by pointing to the government's repeal of carbon pricing, and its aspiration to wind back the renewable energy target.
The head of Unesco has said recently that the Australian government has started to listen to international concerns over the health of the reef.
The director general of the UN's cultural and heritage body, Irina Bokova, told Guardian Australia in an interview in mid-November that she hoped the government's plan for the reef would "reverse the trend" of its decline.
Bokova said Unesco's world heritage committee was "very worried by the damage to the universal value of the Great Barrier Reef but now the government is listening, the government is starting to take serious measures".
But the Australian Academy of Science has cast doubt over the efficacy of government action.
In its formal response to the Reef 2050 long-term sustainability plan drawn up by the Australian and Queensland governments - the Australian Academy of Science contends the strategy is "inadequate to achieve the goal of restoring or even maintaining the diminished outstanding universal value of the reef".
LOAD-DATE: November 20, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
233 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 20, 2014 Thursday 9:01 PM GMT
Morning Mail: Bishop rebukes Obama, Icac prosecutions, Cosby allegations;
Guardian Australia's morning news briefing from around the web
BYLINE: Mary Hamilton
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 593 words
Good morning folks, and welcome to the Morning Mail - sign up here to get it straight to your inbox every weekday morning.
Icac
Former NSW Labor powerbroker Eddie Obeid is to be prosecuted over corruption allegations relating to restaurants in Sydney's Circular Quay, after the Independent Commission Against Corruption found he acted corruptly.
Former NSW minister Ian Macdonald is also facing prosecution over a mining license, along with John Maitland, his union colleague and former chair of the mining company in question, Doyles Creek, who faces charges of being an accessory to Macdonald's alleged offences.
Australian news and politics
· Foreign minister Julie Bishop has publicly rebuked US president Barack Obama for drawing attention to the vulnerability of the Great Barrier Reef because of climate change, and failing to acknowledge Australia's remedial action.
· Jacqui Lambie is considering her future with the Palmer United Party and taking legal advice amid reports that she is planning to form a new alliance.
· In a leaked internal memo, ABC journalists have been warned not to "indulge" their personal feelings or "overstate" the impact of Coalition cuts when reporting the issue.
· Zoe's law, a bill which critics argued would put abortion rights at risk by giving personhood to a foetus, has failed in the NSW parliament.
Around the world
· Two Burmese men accused of murdering two British backpackers in Thailand have appealed to the victims' families to help them clear their names.
· Barack Obama is set to unveil an immigration plan that could shield millions from the threat of deportation.
· Julian Assange's appeal to lift the Swedish arrest warrant against him has been rejected, meaning the Wikileaks founder still faces extradition to Sweden if he leaves the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
· Thirty countries meeting in Berlin have collectively pledged US$9.3bn for the Green Climate Fund which aims to help developing countries deal with global warming.
· Prince Charles' intention to become an "activist" king could force the UK to rethink the role of the monarchy, MPs have been told.
· Nearly 1,000 people have been killed during the ceasefire in Ukraine, with abuses on both sides.
More from around the web
· Among the most read on the Guardian this morning: US comedian Bill Cosby has been accused of sexual assault by a seventh named woman ; Hadley Freeman writes on how the comedian's image shielded him from rape claims.
· Australia's budget deficit is heading towards $40bn rather than $30bn, with iron ore prices triggering a blowout this year, the Australian reports.
· Clive Palmer stormed out of a Lateline interview last night after being asked about an upcoming civil case being brought against him by Chinese government-owned investment group Citic Pacific, the ABC reports.
· Egypt's president Sisi says he is considering pardoning Australian al-Jazeera journalist Peter Greste and one of his colleagues, the ABC reports.
· UK Tories have described Tony Abbott's attitude to climate change as "eccentric", "baffling" and "flat earther", Fairfax reports.
· News Corp reports on the Colt incest clan.
One last thing
Mike Nichols, director of The Graduate, has died aged 83 ; Peter Bradshaw writes about the career of a director who found the zeitgeist in every decade.
Have an excellent day - and if you spot something I've missed, let me know on Twitter @newsmary.
Sign up
Get the Morning Mail direct to your inbox first thing every weekday by signing up here.
LOAD-DATE: November 20, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
234 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 20, 2014 Thursday 4:00 PM GMT
Live chat: how can we maintain food security in an uncertain world?;
As our world faces rising social and environmental challenges, how can leaders improve food security and nutrition? Join our debate on 27 November 2014, 1-3pm GMT Sponsored by GAIN
BYLINE: Charlotte Seager
SECTION: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS NETWORK
LENGTH: 324 words
As global leaders gather this week at the ICN2 international conference on nutrition, our thoughts turn to improving food security and nutrition.
This is an urgent issue: global food demand is set to rise by 50% in 2050, and climate change, international conflict and virus outbreaks are all rising challenges for farming. So, how can we maintain food security and nutrition in an increasingly unstable world?
Air pollution is a major risk to improving global nutrition. Research shows that in the next 10 years climate change will inhibit the growth of field-grown wheat by 10%. Farmers won't be able to adapt to avoid its effects, as this pollution will impact urban and rural farming alike.
Elsewhere, international conflicts are adding to the crisis. Take the recent conflict in South Sudan, which has set the country on course towards a "hunger catastrophe", with almost 4 million people in dire need of food and humanitarian assistance. Likewise, enduring conflict in Somalia has left nearly 3 million people at risk of hunger.
Meanwhile, virus outbreaks pose a minute but equally deadly threat to farming. For example, west Africa's recent Ebola crisis significantly disrupted agricultural and market activities, and threatened to erode food security throughout the region.
So, with these challenges in mind, how can policymakers, NGOs and those working in development integrate food security and nutrition planning throughout the world? And what can world leaders do to help maintain food security in an uncertain world? Join our expert panel on Thursday 27 November, 1-3pm GMT to discuss these questions and more.
The live chat is not video or audio-enabled but will take place in the comments section (below). Get in touch via globaldevpros@theguardian.com or @GuardianGDP on Twitter to recommend someone for our expert panel. Follow the discussion using the hashtag #globaldevlive.
Panel to be announced.
LOAD-DATE: November 20, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
235 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 20, 2014 Thursday 2:59 PM GMT
Resilient energy systems: how will the UK adapt?;
Hurricanes and floods will become commonplace unless carbon emissions are cut right back, but will a clean energy supply system be reliable and robust enough to weather the storm?This article is sponsored by Atkins
BYLINE: Craig Scott
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 1607 words
Earlier this month, the UN released a report that said climate change was set to cause "severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts" on the natural world unless carbon emissions were cut sharply. UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon added his voice to the warnings by urging financial markets to stop investing in fossil fuels, such as oil and coal, and focus on renewables.
While the warnings are stark, there are also opportunities for those striving to make energy systems more resilient to the risks posed by climate change and the move to clean fuels.
But what are the greatest risks facing our existing energy infrastructure? How will changes in the environment affect energy distribution? Will such systems be able to withstand extreme weather events brought on by climate change and where do the opportunities lie? Those questions were all discussed at a recent Guardian roundtable, sponsored by engineering firm Atkins and attended by climate change and energy experts.
At the table
Jo Confino (chair), executive editor, Guardian News and Media
Natalyn Ala, technical director, water & environment, Atkins
Stephen Adams, partner, Global Counsel
Syed Ahmed, director, Energy for London
James Beal, independent consultant
Mark Kenber, CEO, Climate Group
Keith MacLean, independent energy adviser
Richard Miller, deputy director, Innovate UK
Mark Workman, executive analyst, Energy Research Partnerships; researcher, Imperial College London
David French, energy sector director, water & environment, Atkins
For many participants, the first step in future-proofing our energy systems is to start rethinking how our power network is structured. "We need to start thinking about diversifying our energy supply," said Mark Kenber, chief executive of the Climate Group.
Diversifying our energy supply relies on increasing the number of smaller-scale sources of energy. For example, this could mean installing rooftop solar panels, which can provide off-grid power to homes, or creating larger district heating networks that generate heat for those living in an area from a local, renewable source.
Syed Ahmed, director of Energy for London, agreed energy needed to be decentralised. "When you've seen extreme weather events like hurricane Sandy, or when you look at systems failures like the New York blackout, the only buildings that were still functioning were those that had on-site, decentralised energy systems."
Relying on a centralised supply of heat and power, mostly generated from fossil fuels, also makes our energy network vulnerable to numerous threats. The roundtable heard that these include: potential changes in regulations that ban or increase taxes on fossil fuels; cyber security attacks on the operating systems that control power stations; and shortages of water brought about by climate change.
Despite such threats, the UK's energy network is "99.9% resilient", said Ahmed, and so power shortages in the country were unlikely to be widespread. But Stephen Adams, a partner at Global Counsel, said even these rare events would still cause massive disruption to a country like the UK because of the level of "interconnectivities".
Energy systems are so interconnected with other systems, such as transport, water, communication, healthcare and banking, that the loss of power for any length of time would cause widespread damage, the roundtable heard.
The complexity of such interconnected systems and their reliance on the power network was a concern for many. "Systems are so complex - technical, political, financial, social - that we don't have the computing power to anticipate what shocks are going to happen, where and how," said Mark Workman, an executive analyst from Energy Research Partnership. Such uncertainty means it's hard to make our energy systems more resilient to climate change.
To illustrate the point, Richard Miller, deputy director of Innovate UK, used the example of the 2003 European heatwave, in which 70,000 people died. Many of the victims included older people with heart and breathing difficulties who couldn't keep their homes cool. That heatwave was a pretty unique event when it happened, he said. "By 2030 it's expected to be fairly common - by 2060 that could be considered quite a cool summer."
With most of Europe's population ageing, Miller urged the group to think about how the extra demand for air conditioning units in the face of rising temperatures will affect the power demand. Are such things being considered by the energy planners and policymakers mapping our future energy requirements? "We're resilient to a certain model of the future, but that future is changing," he said.
Having a better understanding of power demand, rather than new diverse supply models, was therefore essential to future-proofing our energy, said Miller: "You still have a million plus homes in the UK that don't have loft insulation. There would be direct and immediate benefits if you could overcome that inertia."
Independent energy consultant Keith MacLean suggested this was less of an obstacle before the major utilities were privatised. Now, commercial regulations have placed "Chinese walls" between companies to stop them "looking across the piece", he said.
Natalyn Ala of Atkins agreed: "We're compartmentalised in silos and we need to look above. Someone needs to coordinate a change of behaviour," she said.
Taking that big-picture view wasn't going to be easy, said renewable energy specialist James Beal. We're at a point in time that requires us to change our entire energy infrastructure. "This is not a once-in-a-generation point - this is a once-in-every-three-generations point," he said.
David French of Atkins said short-term thinking from decision-makers was making the upgrade and diversification of our energy infrastructure difficult. "We're trying to deal with long-term, very complex issues in five year political cycles," he said.
Kenber agreed, pointing out that the move to renewables was hampered by political timeframes. He suggested imposing a carbon price that goes up at twice the rate of inflation and doesn't change after elections.
So if politicians aren't prepared to take the long-term view and industry is hamstrung by anti-monopoly market regulations, who will step up to take responsibility for the resilience of our energy systems?
A number of delegates believed the UK's major cities were best placed to take a lead. Technological developments had enabled city planners to look at these problems in a way they couldn't before and plan for the future accordingly, said Miller. "If you allow localised control and decision-making, energy supply becomes increasingly resilient," he said.
Another big challenge facing an energy industry required to use renewables was storage, said MacLean. "We've been very comfortable with a big pile of coal, which has been our storage, whether for heat, power or industry. We're now saying coal is the bad guy, but we haven't got an alternative."
Miller suggested one storage opportunity could be provided by electric vehicles. If and when electric vehicles become the norm, their batteries could be used to store energy overnight when most of the transport system wasn't in use. "If you combine that with very good efficiency improvements in buildings and transport, you can create a model that might actually work," he said.
The roundtable also discussed how changes to the energy network could bring about opportunities for business. Workman suggested the big six energy suppliers in the UK should start looking into leasing solar panels for rooftops - a business model that already has a foothold in the US. "Why aren't one of the big six doing that here?" he asked. "It's going to happen. Here's an opportunity to build expertise that could be exported to places like Mumbai, where rooftop solar will be the only option. It may not make a lot of money in the short term, but it's going to open up a market that's huge."
Ahmed supported this view, telling the roundtable how Denmark had become a leading exporter of the skills it had learned from more than 30 years of building low-carbon cities. "Denmark is realising it has something that is really valuable to other cities around the world," he said, and the UK could learn from its example.
Many countries are already coming to the UK looking to learn from our expertise in offshore wind and invest in the infrastructure, said Beal. The United Arab Emirates has recently invested £525m in the Dudgeon wind farm off the east coast of England, he pointed out, and the UK continues to lead the market in terms of offshore wind capacity. "There are areas where we are leading the world," he said.
The debate ended with much optimism. For Kenber, this was rooted in the fact that progress is not reliant on untried technology: "We have all the tools we need. We don't have to invent anymore for what we need to do in the next 30 years," he said. However, what is missing, he added, is leadership to coordinate the deployment of those tools.
Workman was confident the UK had the skills ready and waiting to overcome the challenges, despite a lack of leadership, concluding: "We have the talent to do what we want."
This content is sponsored by Atkins. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled brought to you by. For information on roundtables click here or contact Contact Dan Gee on 020 3353 3295 ( dan.gee@theguardian.com ).
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: November 20, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
236 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 20, 2014 Thursday 12:50 PM GMT
Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change;
A new paper examines the evidence for the effectiveness of communicating the expert consensus on human-caused global warming
BYLINE: John Cook
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 773 words
An interesting sequence of events followed the publication of a scientific paper I co-authored in May last year. The paper found a 97% consensus that humans were causing global warming in relevant scientific papers. Finding an overwhelming consensus was nothing new. Studies in 2009 and 2010 also found 97% agreement among climate scientists on human-caused global warming. Nevertheless, the paper attracted much media attention, including tweets from Elon Musk and President Obama.
We expected our work would be attacked from those who reject climate science. We weren't disappointed. Since publication, hundreds of blog posts, reports, videos, papers and op-eds have been published attacking our paper. A year and a half later, there is no sign of slowing. But this is just the latest chapter in over two decades of manufactured doubt on the scientific consensus about climate change.
What did surprise me were criticisms from scientists who accept the science on climate change. They weren't arguing against the existence of a consensus, but whether we should be communicating the consensus. This surprised me, as our approach to climate communication was evidence-based, drawing on social science research. So in response, I along with co-author Peter Jacobs have published a scholarly paper summarising all the evidence and research underscoring the importance of consensus messaging.
One objection against consensus messaging is that scientists should be talking about evidence, rather than consensus. After all, our understanding of climate change is based on empirical measurements, not a show of hands. But this objection misunderstands the point of consensus messaging. It's not about "proving" human-caused global warming. It's about expressing the state of scientific understanding of climate change, which is built on a growing body of evidence.
Consensus messaging recognises the fact that people rely on expert opinion when it comes to complex scientific issues. Studies in 2011 and 2013 found that perception of scientific consensus is a gateway belief that has a flow-on effect to a number of other beliefs and attitudes. When people are aware of the high level of scientific agreement on human-caused global warming, they're more likely to accept that climate change is happening, that humans are causing it and support policies to reduce carbon pollution.
Another argument against consensus messaging is that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on from fundamental issues such as the consensus. The evidence says otherwise. Public surveys have found that the public are deeply unaware of the consensus. On average, the public think there's a 50:50 debate. There are several contributors to this "consensus gap", including mainstream media's tendency to give contrarian voices equal weight with the climate science community.
Funnily enough, a third objection to consensus messaging argues that we shouldn't communicate consensus because public views havenot moved on. In other words, the fact that public opinion about consensus hasn't shifted over the last decade implies that consensus messaging is ineffective.
Dan Kahan argues that consensus is a polarizing message. Liberals are predisposed to respond positively to consensus messaging. Meanwhile, conservatives are more likely to reject the scientific consensus.
Political ideology certainly does influence people's attitudes towards climate change. The following graph shows data I've collected from a representative sample of Americans, asking them how many climate scientists agreed about human-caused global warming. The horizontal access in this graph represents political ideology (specifically, support for an unregulated free market, free of interference from government).
Two important features jump out from this figure. First, the slope in the line represents the strong influence of political ideology. Conservatives (with stronger support for free markets) show a much lower perception of consensus than liberals. Second, even liberals have a low perception of consensus relative to the 97% consensus. Given liberals are predisposed to accept the consensus, this "liberal consensus gap" is a result of a lack of information and/or a surplus of misinformation.
So there is still much work to do. Several decades of casting doubt on the consensus has contributed to maintaining the consensus gap. This is why communication experts urge scientists to communicate the 97% consensus. This approach is based on a growing body of evidence underscoring the important role of perceived consensus and the necessity of consensus messaging.
LOAD-DATE: November 20, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
237 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 20, 2014 Thursday 11:42 AM GMT
Merchants of Doubt film exposes slick US industry behind climate denial;
Robert Kenner's forthcoming documentary lifts the lid on the 'professional deceivers' manipulating US debate on climate change
BYLINE: Stephen Leahy
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 513 words
Who remembers that climate change was a top priority early in George W Bush's first term as US president? Merchants of Doubt, a new documentary film released in US cinemas this week, reminds us that in June 2001 Bush and the Republican party were 100% committed to curbing carbon emissions causing global warming.
Six months later everything changed. The film shows Republican party leader John Boehner calling the idea of global warming "laughable", said Merchants of Doubt director Robert Kenner.
With the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center occupying attention, Americans For Prosperity, a powerful, fossil-fuel lobby group founded by the billionaire Koch Brothers, launched a decade-long, multi-pronged campaign to sow doubt about the reality of climate change.
By equating the findings of climate scientists as an attack on personal freedoms, they cleverly shifted the focus away from science to political opinion. "Creating a focus point away from what is actually going on is how magicians pull off their tricks," said Kenner who directed the Oscar-nominated documentary Food Inc.
The deception has worked well. Few Americans know 97% of scientists agree climate change is caused by human activity and is happening now.
Inspired by the 2010 book of the same name, Kenner's film is about deception and profiles many of the charming and always smiling professional deceivers who work for the tobacco, chemical, pharmaceutical, and fossil fuel industries. The tobacco industry knowingly and successfully deceived the public for 50 years about the connection between smoking and cancer, the 1988 tobacco lawsuit settlement revealed.
In a pattern of manipulation clearly evident today in the manufactured 'debate' over climate change, the tobacco industry used media-friendly pseudo-experts, doctored 'science' studies and attacked the credibility of scientists or experts who said otherwise, Kenner said.
Peter Sparber, one the tobacco industry's most successful deceivers, told Kenner that he could get the public to believe a garbage man knew more about science than prominent climate scientist James Hansen.
"If you can sell tobacco you can sell anything," Sparber tells Kenner.
Selling confusion and doubt around a complex issue like climate change was far easier than selling tobacco. Nearly all of those well-paid climate misinformers have no science background and often clear ties to industry lobby groups and yet are treated as expert commentators on climate science by media. It's not just Fox News. Serious news outlets like CNN and the New York Times are complicit by featuring misinformers in news articles and on discussion panels, he said.
The film also focuses on the many self-described "grassroots" organisations that are actually promoting specific corporate and political interests. These organisations are often aided by, and passionately supported by, ordinary citizens who believe they are fighting for personal freedoms and libertarian or conservative values.
Kenner is hoping audiences "will realise they've been lied to" and develop better "bullshit detectors".
LOAD-DATE: November 20, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
238 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 20, 2014 Thursday 9:10 AM GMT
Australia's foreign minister Julie Bishop rebukes Barack Obama over Great Barrier Reef;
After US president drew attention to climate change's effect on reef, foreign minister says he 'overlooked' Australian actions
BYLINE: Katharine Murphy, deputy political editor
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 580 words
Australia's foreign minister Julie Bishop has publicly rebuked the US president Barack Obama for drawing attention to the vulnerability of the Great Barrier Reef because of climate change, and failing to acknowledge Australia's remedial action.
In an interview with the ABC's 7.30 Report from New York on Thursday night, Bishop said a recent speech by the American president in Brisbane "overlooked" Australian actions in preserving the reef.
She said there was an issue with the president's remarks.
"We are demonstrating world's best practice in working with the World Heritage Committee to ensure that the Great Barrier Reef is preserved for generations to come," Bishop said on Thursday night.
"I think that president Obama might have overlooked that aspect of our commitment to conserving the Great Barrier Reef."
Bishop said she understood why the Queensland government had issued a rebuttal to Washington. The Queensland premier Campbell Newman blamed green groups for spreading misinformation.
In a speech in Brisbane at the G20 last weekend, the US president said he had not yet had time to go to the Great Barrier Reef, but he wanted it to be protected so his daughters and generations to come could see the natural wonder. "I want that there, fifty years from now."
"I know that there has been a healthy debate in this country about (climate change)," the president said. "Here in the Asia Pacific nobody has more at stake when it comes to thinking about, and then acting on, climate change.
"The incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened. Worldwide this past summer was the hottest on record."
The pointed comments from the visiting president followed the unveiling of a landmark deal mid-month between America and China to reduce their greenhouse gas output.
China has agreed to cap carbon emissions for the first time, and the US has committed achieving to deep reductions by 2025. The agreement is regarded as a game changing development for global climate talks.
The cooperation between the world's two major emitters deeply embarrassed the Abbott government on the eve of the Brisbane G20 summit, and the comments in Brisbane from the American president compounded the political discomfort for the Coalition. The government was furious with the intervention.
Labor and the Greens have moved expeditiously to capitalise on the embarrassment domestically by pointing to the government's repeal of carbon pricing, and its aspiration to wind back the renewable energy target.
The head of Unesco has said recently that the Australian government has started to listen to international concerns over the health of the reef.
The director general of the UN's cultural and heritage body, Irina Bokova, told Guardian Australia in an interview in mid-November that she hoped the government's plan for the reef would "reverse the trend" of its decline.
Bokova said Unesco's world heritage committee was "very worried by the damage to the universal value of the Great Barrier Reef but now the government is listening, the government is starting to take serious measures".
But the Australian Academy of Science has cast doubt over the efficacy of government action.
In its formal response to the Reef 2050 long-term sustainability plan drawn up by the Australian and Queensland governments - the Australian Academy of Science contends the strategy is "inadequate to achieve the goal of restoring or even maintaining the diminished outstanding universal value of the reef".
LOAD-DATE: November 20, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
239 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 20, 2014 Thursday 8:48 AM GMT
Julie Bishop rebukes Barack Obama over Great Barrier Reef comments;
After US president drew attention to climate change's effect on reef, foreign minister says he 'overlooked' Australian actions
BYLINE: Katharine Murphy, deputy political editor
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 580 words
Australia's foreign minister Julie Bishop has publicly rebuked the US president Barack Obama for drawing attention to the vulnerability of the Great Barrier Reef because of climate change, and failing to acknowledge Australia's remedial action.
In an interview with the ABC's 7.30 Report from New York on Thursday night, Bishop said a recent speech by the American president in Brisbane "overlooked" Australian actions in preserving the reef.
She said there was an issue with the president's remarks.
"We are demonstrating world's best practice in working with the World Heritage Committee to ensure that the Great Barrier Reef is preserved for generations to come," Bishop said on Thursday night.
"I think that president Obama might have overlooked that aspect of our commitment to conserving the Great Barrier Reef."
Bishop said she understood why the Queensland government had issued a rebuttal to Washington. The Queensland premier Campbell Newman blamed green groups for spreading misinformation.
In a speech in Brisbane at the G20 last weekend, the US president said he had not yet had time to go to the Great Barrier Reef, but he wanted it to be protected so his daughters and generations to come could see the natural wonder. "I want that there, fifty years from now."
"I know that there has been a healthy debate in this country about (climate change)," the president said. "Here in the Asia Pacific nobody has more at stake when it comes to thinking about, and then acting on, climate change.
"The incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened. Worldwide this past summer was the hottest on record."
The pointed comments from the visiting president followed the unveiling of a landmark deal mid-month between America and China to reduce their greenhouse gas output.
China has agreed to cap carbon emissions for the first time, and the US has committed achieving to deep reductions by 2025. The agreement is regarded as a game changing development for global climate talks.
The cooperation between the world's two major emitters deeply embarrassed the Abbott government on the eve of the Brisbane G20 summit, and the comments in Brisbane from the American president compounded the political discomfort for the Coalition. The government was furious with the intervention.
Labor and the Greens have moved expeditiously to capitalise on the embarrassment domestically by pointing to the government's repeal of carbon pricing, and its aspiration to wind back the renewable energy target.
The head of Unesco has said recently that the Australian government has started to listen to international concerns over the health of the reef.
The director general of the UN's cultural and heritage body, Irina Bokova, told Guardian Australia in an interview in mid-November that she hoped the government's plan for the reef would "reverse the trend" of its decline.
Bokova said Unesco's world heritage committee was "very worried by the damage to the universal value of the Great Barrier Reef but now the government is listening, the government is starting to take serious measures".
But the Australian Academy of Science has cast doubt over the efficacy of government action.
In its formal response to the Reef 2050 long-term sustainability plan drawn up by the Australian and Queensland governments - the Australian Academy of Science contends the strategy is "inadequate to achieve the goal of restoring or even maintaining the diminished outstanding universal value of the reef".
LOAD-DATE: November 20, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
240 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 20, 2014 Thursday 8:00 AM GMT
Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change;
A new paper examines the evidence for the effectiveness of communicating the expert consensus on human-caused global warming
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 773 words
An interesting sequence of events followed the publication of a scientific paper I co-authored in May last year. The paper found a 97% consensus that humans were causing global warming in relevant scientific papers. Finding an overwhelming consensus was nothing new. Studies in 2009 and 2010 also found 97% agreement among climate scientists on human-caused global warming. Nevertheless, the paper attracted much media attention, including tweets from Elon Musk and President Obama.
We expected our work would be attacked from those who reject climate science. We weren't disappointed. Since publication, hundreds of blog posts, reports, videos, papers and op-eds have been published attacking our paper. A year and a half later, there is no sign of slowing. But this is just the latest chapter in over two decades of manufactured doubt on the scientific consensus about climate change.
What did surprise me were criticisms from scientists who accept the science on climate change. They weren't arguing against the existence of a consensus, but whether we should be communicating the consensus. This surprised me, as our approach to climate communication was evidence-based, drawing on social science research. So in response, I along with co-author Peter Jacobs have published a scholarly paper summarising all the evidence and research underscoring the importance of consensus messaging.
One objection against consensus messaging is that scientists should be talking about evidence, rather than consensus. After all, our understanding of climate change is based on empirical measurements, not a show of hands. But this objection misunderstands the point of consensus messaging. It's not about "proving" human-caused global warming. It's about expressing the state of scientific understanding of climate change, which is built on a growing body of evidence.
Consensus messaging recognises the fact that people rely on expert opinion when it comes to complex scientific issues. Studies in 2011 and 2013 found that perception of scientific consensus is a gateway belief that has a flow-on effect to a number of other beliefs and attitudes. When people are aware of the high level of scientific agreement on human-caused global warming, they're more likely to accept that climate change is happening, that humans are causing it and support policies to reduce carbon pollution.
Another argument against consensus messaging is that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on from fundamental issues such as the consensus. The evidence says otherwise. Public surveys have found that the public are deeply unaware of the consensus. On average, the public think there's a 50:50 debate. There are several contributors to this "consensus gap", including mainstream media's tendency to give contrarian voices equal weight with the climate science community.
Funnily enough, a third objection to consensus messaging argues that we shouldn't communicate consensus because public views havenot moved on. In other words, the fact that public opinion about consensus hasn't shifted over the last decade implies that consensus messaging is ineffective.
Dan Kahan argues that consensus is a polarizing message. Liberals are predisposed to respond positively to consensus messaging. Meanwhile, conservatives are more likely to reject the scientific consensus.
Political ideology certainly does influence people's attitudes towards climate change. The following graph shows data I've collected from a representative sample of Americans, asking them how many climate scientists agreed about human-caused global warming. The horizontal access in this graph represents political ideology (specifically, support for an unregulated free market, free of interference from government).
Two important features jump out from this figure. First, the slope in the line represents the strong influence of political ideology. Conservatives (with stronger support for free markets) show a much lower perception of consensus than liberals. Second, even liberals have a low perception of consensus relative to the 97% consensus. Given liberals are predisposed to accept the consensus, this "liberal consensus gap" is a result of a lack of information and/or a surplus of misinformation.
So there is still much work to do. Several decades of casting doubt on the consensus has contributed to maintaining the consensus gap. This is why communication experts urge scientists to communicate the 97% consensus. This approach is based on a growing body of evidence underscoring the important role of perceived consensus and the necessity of consensus messaging.
LOAD-DATE: November 20, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
241 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 20, 2014 Thursday 12:24 AM GMT
ABC, climate change: the Coalition is drowning us in nonsense;
In opposition, authenticity and truth-telling was the focus. Now it's all denials and broken promises
BYLINE: Katharine Murphy, deputy political editor
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 639 words
This morning, on the wireless, I heard the finance minister, Mathias Cormann, say the government wasn't making cuts to the ABC.
The day before, I heard the communications minister, Malcolm Turnbull, say Tony Abbott hadn't actually promised before last September's election not to cut the budgets of the ABC and SBS. If Abbott had said something like that, then he didn't mean it; and more likely, we'd all just misunderstood what the prime minister had said.
Also on Wednesday, I heard the prime minister tell the French president, Francois Hollande, that part of the Australian government's policy arsenal to combat the risks associated with climate change involved funding an agency called the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
What he didn't tell the French president was the government intends to abolish the CEFC.
In politics at the present time, we are drowning in nonsense. The nonsense waves are not only lapping, elegantly, at our ankles, they are picking us all up and dumping us head first into the sand.
The Abbott government is performing so many contortions, and running so rhetorically ragged, it's hard to see if anything coherent is actually going on.
The maximum self-harm you can inflict on yourself in politics is to obscure your substance with abject nonsense, and yet federal politics has been seemingly locked in this cycle for the past couple of terms. Labor deadweighted itself with kindergarten intrigues and dysfunctional personality conflicts.
This government is seemingly intent on deadweighting itself with evasions and too-clever-by-half constructions that can be ripped apart comprehensively in about a minute-and-a-half.
You cannot, as Tony Abbott did in opposition, make a virtue of authenticity and truth-telling in politics then break promises and spout nonsense from the moment you take the prime ministership. By Abbott's own measure, this behaviour is immoral; and if politics is too flawed a business to apply morality, then from a self-interest perspective, it's a recipe for self-destruction.
It is death by a thousand cuts.
Let's be clear on the examples flagged at the start of this dispatch. The government is cutting the budgets of the ABC and SBS. It doesn't matter whether you call the cut an efficiency dividend because it sounds kinder, or if you call it an interpretative dance - it's a cut.
Abbott made an unequivocal promise before the last election not to cut the budgets of the public broadcasters. There were no underpants on what he said - it was black and white. So no, Malcolm, we did not misunderstand what the prime minister said, and you really insult our collective intelligence (and your own) by suggesting otherwise.
As for the CEFC construction - well, that kind of takes the cake. Abbott is sounding increasingly defensive and sensitive on climate change, which he should.
The government has taken a carbon pricing scheme that was rational and functional and replaced it with a scheme that most sensible analysts think is an absolute dog. To dress up clear policy regression as action is an absurdity - absurd enough to be seen for what it is in far away capitals of the world.
On Wednesday in the Senate, two newcomers to Australian politics did a very simple thing. Jacqui Lambie and Ricky Muir got to their feet and said, effectively: we screwed up, we are sorry. We made the compromises and engaged in the sheep-like behaviour that institutional politics seems to demand. It delivered a poor result, and we are going to try very hard not to do that again.
Rather than sneering at the newbies, some of the old timers in Parliament House could stop for a minute and have a good, hard think about that gesture of atonement.
Truth-telling and humility are powerful things.
And as bankrupt as things currently are in Canberra, it is not too late for politics to learn that basic lesson.
LOAD-DATE: November 20, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
242 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 20, 2014 Thursday 12:03 AM GMT
UK pledges £720m to climate change fund for poor countries;
Energy secretary Ed Davey warns against 'little Englander' approach as donation to UN's Green Climate Fund announced
BYLINE: Damian Carrington and Nicholas Watt
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 589 words
Britain will face a disaster if it adopts an "isolationist approach" to the environment, the energy secretary, Ed Davey, has warned as he announced the UK is to give £720m to an international fund to help poor countries cope with climate change.
In remarks aimed at rightwing Tories and Ukip supporters, as voters go to the polls in the Rochester and Strood byelection, Davey said a "little Englander approach" would be self defeating as climate change does not recognise borders.
Davey was speaking to the Guardian on the eve of an announcement that Britain is to donate more than France and Germany to the UN's Green Climate Fund which has a target of $10bn (£8bn). The UK commitment to the fund, seen as a vital step towards rich and poor nations sealing a deal to tackle global warming in 2015, is surpassed only by the US and Japan.
The enthusiasm with which Davey has announced the UK contribution contrasts with reticence in Downing Street, where David Cameron is understood to be nervous about highlighting Britain's contribution to tackling climate change as it faces the prospect of losing its second parliamentary seat to Ukip. The prime minister was at pains to point out at the recent G20 summit in Australia that the UK's £720m contribution is not new money.
Davey said the prime minister should be more robust in challenging climate change sceptics on the Tory right, such as the former environment secretary Owen Paterson, and Ukip suporters.
The energy and climate change secretary told the Guardian: "A little Englander approach, an isolationist approach, is going to be a disaster for the people of Britain. Climate change does not recognise borders." Experts warned recently that global warming would affect health, business and food production in the UK, with a senior military figure also warning that armed forces would be unable to provide global security if climate change goes unchecked. "There is a huge amount at stake," said Davey. "Anyone who has followed the UN negotiations knows the poorest and most vulnerable countries on the planet are looking to developed countries to help them survive climate change. If we do not do this, I don't think we will get a global deal. It is as simple as that."
He said: "[Critics] do not realise the vital work this money is for. This is about saving lives and we have duty to do this." Examples, he said, were helping low-lying nations cope with rising sea levels and subsistence farmers cope with failing crops. The contribution to the GCF will come from an existing UK climate aid fund that will spend £3.9bn from 2011-16.
Asked why the UK was offering the equivalent of $1.13bn, more than the $1bn pledged each by Germany and France, Davey said the UK would only pay the extra if other countries came forward to contribute. "We are doing that to encourage others to give," he said. So far, 14 other nations including Mexico and South Korea have contributed to the GCF, bringing the total with the UK contribution to about $9bn. Australia, led by climate sceptic Tony Abbott, has refused to give money to the ECF.
Davey said that the recent agreement of EU leaders to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 provided a chance to reject the politics of division. He said: "In the UK, we may be experiencing the politics of division - whether from the Scottish Nationalists or Ukip. And our TV screens may be full of conflicts from Syria to Ukraine. Yet, remarkably, climate politics is experiencing a quiet but steady recognition of our common goals and shared interests.
LOAD-DATE: November 20, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
243 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 20, 2014 Thursday 12:01 AM GMT
UK to give £720m to help poor countries cope with climate change;
Britain's commitment to UN's green climate fund is greater than that of Germany or France and only surpassed by US and Japan
BYLINE: Damian Carrington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 579 words
The UK will give £720m to an international fund to help poor nations cope with climate change, the Guardian can reveal.
The UK commitment is greater than that of Germany or France and is only surpassed by the US and Japan. The deadline for contributions to the UN's green climate fund (GCF) is Thursday and achieving its $10bn target is seen as a vital step towards rich and poor nations sealing a deal to tackle global warming in 2015.
The donation comes at a sensitive time in domestic UK politics. The parliamentary byelection in Rochester is expected to see the Conservatives lose the seat to the UK Independence Party (Ukip), which wants to slash overseas development aid, as do some backbench Conservative MPs. Earlier in the week, the prime minister, David Cameron, betrayed his anxiety over the issue by repeatedly stressing that the funding was not new money, but had already been set aside for the purpose.
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem energy and climate change secretary, told the Guardian: "A little-Englander approach, an isolationist approach, is going to be a disaster for the people of Britain. Climate change does not recognise borders."
Experts warned recently that global warming would affect health, business and food production in the UK, with a senior military figure also warning that armed forces would be unable to provide global security if climate change went unchecked.
"There is a huge amount at stake," said Davey. "Anyone who has followed the UN negotiations knows the poorest and most vulnerable countries on the planet are looking to developed countries to help them survive climate change. If we do not do this, I don't think we will get a global deal. It is as simple as that."
He said: "[Critics] do not realise the vital work this money is for. This is about saving lives and we have a duty to do this." Examples, he said, were helping low-lying nations cope with rising sea levels and subsistence farmers cope with failing crops.
The contribution to the GCF will come from an existing UK climate aid fund, which will spend £3.9bn from 2011 to 2016.
Asked why the UK was offering the equivalent of $1.13bn, more than the $1bn pledged each by Germany and France, Davey said the UK would only pay the extra if other countries came forward to contribute. "We are doing that to encourage others to give," he said.
So far, 14 other nations including Mexico and South Korea have contributed to the GCF, bringing the total with the UK contribution to about $9bn. Australia, led by the climate sceptic Tony Abbott, has refused to give money to the GCF.
Meena Raman, from the NGO Third World Network and an official observer on the GCF board, said: "Given the scale of the challenge at hand for developing countries, the UK contribution is very small."
She said the £10bn likely to be pledged for the GCF for the period 2015-18 was "backsliding" compared to the ambition in 2009, which was for $10bn a year. Subsequent UN talks have set a goal of $100bn a year by 2020, she said.
Sir David King, the UK foreign secretary's special representative for climate change, told the Guardian last week that the billions spent by the UK on overseas climate aid were "critically important" to creating the trust between nations required to seal a global deal.
Sweden has pledged $0.5bn to the GCF and Isabella Lövin, international development minister, said: "The GCF is not a charity; it is an investment for our collective future, for a secure world."
LOAD-DATE: November 20, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
244 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 20, 2014 Thursday
The International New York Times
A Dam Revival, Despite Risks
BYLINE: By ERICA GIES
SECTION: Section ; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; SPECIAL REPORT: BUSINESS OF GREEN; Pg.
LENGTH: 1238 words
While some dams in the United States and Europe are being decommissioned, a dam-building boom is underway in developing countries. It is a shift from the 1990s, when amid concerns about environmental impacts and displaced people, multilateral lenders like the World Bank backed away from large hydroelectric power projects.
World hydropower production will grow from 4,000 terawatt hours now -- about the annual power output of the United States -- to 4,670 terawatt hours in 2020, according to Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of the International Energy Agency, in Paris. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that hydropower generation will double in China between 2008 and 2035, and triple in India and Africa.
The World Bank and other international lenders were the most important financiers of large dams before the '90s lull. But although the World Bank has in recent years increased its investment in hydropower from a low of just a few million dollars in 1999 to about $1.8 billion in 2014, it still funds only 2 percent of hydropower project investment today.
Picking up the slack are national development banks from emerging countries such as China, Brazil, Thailand, and India, and private investors. Public-private partnerships are on the rise, generally with the support of regional development banks.
''Who benefits from these infrastructure projects?'' asked Jason Rainey, executive director of the anti-dam group International Rivers, in Berkeley, Calif.
Some well-documented answers: The Xayaburi Dam in Laos will sell power to Thailand, while threatening the subsistence livelihoods of people who have long lived along the Mekong River; the Inga 3 dam in the Democratic Republic of Congo will sell power to mining companies and to South Africa, rather than to the 96 percent of Congolese who lack access to electricity.
A 2012 report from International Rivers found that Chinese companies or financiers were involved in 308 dam projects in 70 different countries, many in Southeast Asia, but also some in Africa, Latin America and Pakistan. Aside from supplying electricity to investing countries, projects can also offer a type of vertical integration to power funders' industrial projects, such as mining or smelting. ''China isn't the only one working this model,'' Mr. Rainey said: ''The Brazilian Development Bank has financed more dam projects in Latin America than the Inter-American Development Bank. India is investing in hydropower in Nepal and Bhutan.''
Nancy Alexander, director of the Economic Governance Program for the Heinrich Böll Foundation, a public policy institute in Berlin, said she attributed this trend partly to a Group of 20 initiative that prioritized infrastructure investment as a path to economic stability.
The initiative encourages joint financing by multilateral development banks and other sources. A World Bank report on hydropower this year said that the bank now ''typically acts as a 'convener,' bringing other financiers to the table.'' It said that over the past five years, the World Bank Group had funded about half of the costs of projects that it financed, with the balance coming from host country governments, the private sector and other development banks.
Ms. Alexander said the problem with this model is that it ''derisks'' mega-projects for the private sector and draws in institutional investors like pension funds and mutual funds. ''Very often this means privatizing profits and outsourcing risks to the public,'' she said.
Those risks can be both significant and hidden, she added. Project backers may cite national security or business confidentiality to avoid sharing information with the public.
National development banks such as the Brazilian Development Bank, China Development Bank and the Development Bank of Southern Africa ''have abysmal records in terms of transparency and in terms of social and environmental safeguards,'' Ms. Alexander said.
The reduced involvement of global institutions allows countries to ignore international concerns. Although international backers have pulled out, for example, public-private funding has permitted Turkey to go ahead with its Ilisu Dam on the Tigris, defying Unesco's objections that it would flood Hasankeyf, a town with 10,000 years of history. Turkish dam projects have also played a role in drying out Iraqi wetlands downstream and exacerbating tensions in Syria.
Yet, although dam investment is coming from diversified sources, activist organizations still look to the World Bank to set the standard for environmental and social protections. At the World Bank's annual meetings this autumn, 318 civil society organizations from 98 countries criticized its proposal for a new environmental and social framework, saying it would weaken existing safeguards. Among other things, they said, it would undermine the rights of indigenous people and of those displaced by projects, fail to protect workers or guarantee human rights and not meaningfully address climate change.
''They have a lot of weasel language that softens and dampens safeguards,'' Mr. Rainey said.
Amy Stilwell, a spokeswoman for the World Bank, said the proposal was just a starting point. A second phase of consultations, including those with the petitioning groups, will begin soon, with a second draft expected in 2015, she said.
Part of the reason dams are back in favor, despite ongoing concerns, is the increasing awareness of climate change and the need for cleaner energy sources, said Ken Adams, president of the International Hydropower Association, an industry group based in London. Hydropower can also balance the electricity load and store energy to support intermittent renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, he said.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change supports hydropower to slow climate change, calling it a ''proven, mature, predictable technology,'' in a 2011 report.
Hydropower's reputation for low emissions, however, has come under scientific scrutiny in recent years. Reservoirs behind dams flood vegetation, which decays, releasing methane and soil carbon. A 2012 study, in the journal Nature Climate Change, concluded that ''emissions from tropical hydropower are often underestimated and can exceed those of fossil fuel for decades.''
The study emphasized that the effect is more pronounced in tropical ecosystems. Yet hydropower is typically presumed to be emission-free, Mr. Rainey said. ''There is no mechanism within dam sanctioning processes, or any of the funding models, that methane emissions be monitored in dam projects,'' he said, adding that even carbon market instruments such as the Clean Development Mechanism help to fund large dams without considering their carbon footprints.
Mr. Adams said his association's voluntary standards could offer a solution. Its Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol, drafted with input from various stakeholders, including the World Bank, provides a framework for hydropower developers to monitor and benchmark their projects. William Rex, a hydropower specialist at the World Bank said: ''We see it as a really useful tool.''
Mr. Adams said his association would like to see financial institutions encourage borrowers to use it. ''Any energy source is going to have its good side and downside,'' said Mr. Adams. ''But I believe that if done intelligently and appropriately, the downsides to hydro projects can be managed.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/business/energy-environment/private-funding-brings-a-boom-in-hydropower-with-high-costs.html
LOAD-DATE: November 20, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Special Report
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
245 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 20, 2014 Thursday
Late Edition - Final
Harvard Students Move Fossil Fuel Stock Fight to Court
BYLINE: By JOHN SCHWARTZ
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 4
LENGTH: 833 words
A group of Harvard students, frustrated by the university's refusal to shed fossil fuel stocks from its investment portfolios, is looking beyond protests and resolutions to a new form of pressure: the courts.
The seven undergraduate, graduate and law students filed a lawsuit on Wednesday in Suffolk County Superior Court in Massachusetts against the president and fellows of Harvard College, among others, for what they call ''mismanagement of charitable funds.'' The 11-page complaint, with 167 pages of supporting exhibits, asks the court to compel divestment on behalf of the students and ''future generations.''
Students at Harvard joined the broader movement for fossil fuel divestment that began two years ago at Swarthmore College. And while some schools have adopted new divestment policies, including Stanford University and Pitzer College, Drew Gilpin Faust, Harvard's president, has argued that dropping fossil fuel investments is not ''warranted or wise.'' The university's endowment, she said, ''is a resource, not an instrument to impel social or political change.''
This spring, Ms. Faust, citing the scientific consensus that ''climate change poses a serious threat to our future -- and increasingly to our present,'' announced that Harvard would integrate ''environmental, social and governance factors'' into its investments in ways that are ''aligned with investors' fiduciary duties.''
But that shift in tone did not go far enough for many students. ''It became more and more clear they were just reaching a dead end with the university and the administration,'' said Kelsey Skaggs, a member of the group of plaintiffs.
The students' legal arguments are unusual. In one section of their complaint, they invoke a tort, ''intentional investment in abnormally dangerous activities,'' that has no apparent precedent in law. Their other major legal argument accuses the school of ''mismanagement of charitable funds,'' and cites the original Harvard charter with the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1650 as well as state case law that allows those with a ''special interest'' in an organization to bring claims concerning mismanagement of its funds.
The students acknowledge that they may need a sympathetic judge to find that they fit within the legal definitions of those having a ''special interest,'' compared with the general population, and are thus entitled to sue. Ted Hamilton, a law student and a member of the student plaintiffs group, called their request a ''slight expansion'' of current law that ''does not depart in any radical way from the course that the courts have been taking.''
A Harvard spokesman, Jeff Neal, said of the students' filing, ''We expect that a court will need to consider the legal basis of their complaint.'' While acknowledging that ''climate change poses a serious threat to our planet,'' he continued: ''We agree that threat must be confronted, but sometimes differ on the means. Harvard has been, and continues to be, focused on supporting the research and teaching that will ultimately create the solutions to this challenge.''
The students said that they drew inspiration from John Bonifaz, a graduate of Harvard Law School who, with other students, sued the university in the 1990s over racial diversity in the law school's hiring practices. His suit was ultimately unsuccessful, but it was widely considered influential in nudging the school's actions.
Mr. Bonifaz, a MacArthur grant recipient who now practices law in Massachusetts and is active in voting rights issues around the country, said the students had been in contact with him. They are making ''a creative and powerful argument,'' he said, ''and I think it can shift the overall debate.''
The Harvard students, he added, are taking activism over divestment ''to another level by grounding it in a legal argument.''
While a suit like the one filed by the Harvard students could conceivably open the door to all manner of student protest suits over a range of issues, the dire nature of climate change, the students said, makes their suit unique.
The decision to place climate change before the courts was not taken lightly, the students said. The judicial system has been slow to take a role in the climate debate, Ms. Skaggs acknowledged. In her home state, Alaska, a lawsuit against energy industry companies by Kivalina, a sea-threatened town, died in the courts. The Supreme Court in 2011 turned away a suit brought by eight states, New York City and environmental groups. Lawsuits brought on behalf of children to fight climate change have also met with judicial skepticism.
Lee Goldstein, a clinical instructor in the Harvard Law School legal aid bureau, said that the issue of whether the students were legally qualified to sue, known as standing, could be fatal to the students' suit, as it was to the earlier suit brought by Mr. Bonifaz and others. Still, he said, ''I think it's a plausible theory that might give a court the opportunity to do the right thing.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/us/harvard-students-move-fossil-fuel-divestment-fight-to-court.html
LOAD-DATE: January 26, 2015
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Protesters at Harvard in 2013. A group of students wants the school to divest its fossil fuel stocks. (PHOTOGRAPH BY CHRISTOPHER J. MAGNANI/THE HARVARD CRIMSON)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
246 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 19, 2014 Wednesday 5:44 PM GMT
On 15 September, while President;
When Prince Charles becomes king, will he be able to stop his compulsive 'meddling'? And if he can't, what will it mean for the monarchy and the United Kingdom?
SECTION: UK NEWS
LENGTH: 5131 words
On 15 September, while President Obama was meeting with his advisers in the White House and deciding how to unleash the world's most powerful military machine on the Islamic State in Iraq, his ambassador to Britain, Matthew Barzun, was spending the day in a field in Gloucestershire, learning about nitrogen-fixing plants and the dangers of sub-clinical mastitis in cows' udders. The reason was simple: Barzun was visiting Prince Charles's organic Home Farm. Wearing boxfresh Hunter wellies, Barzun picked his way around some cowpats to take a close look at a field of organic red clover. He snapped a photo on his smartphone.
For the past 34 years, the farm has been one of Charles's chief passions. It has become the agricultural embodiment of his beliefs about everything from the natural world to the globalised economy. On winter weekends, he can be found - wearing his patched-up tweed farm coat - laying some of the farm's hedges to keep alive one of his beloved traditional farming techniques. (Charles is such an enthusiast that he hosted the National Hedgelaying Championships here in 2005.) The farm closely reflects Charles's likes and dislikes. In one field, there is a herd of Ayrshire cattle. Charles bought them after he declared that he didn't want yet more common "black and whites".
That morning, the ambassador was not the only influential figure invited for a private tour of the royal farm. Alongside Barzun was Professor Ian Boyd, the chief scientific adviser at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), George Ferguson, the elected mayor of Bristol, and Sir Alan Parker, the chairman of Brunswick, the public relations company that advises Tesco. They were accompanied by civil servants from Defra and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and shown round by the Prince's friend, Patrick Holden, an organic agriculture campaigner, and Charles's farm manager, David Wilson.
The day was organised by Holden's Sustainable Food Trust, but the talking points faithfully echoed Charles's view that industrialised agriculture is a big, dangerous experiment with our environment and a threat to the livelihoods of small farmers. Here was a branch of Prince Charles's power network in action. Away from the public glare, issues that matter intensely to him were being discussed in front of some of the most powerful people in Britain. In an echo of his famous comment of 1986 that he talks to his plants - he joked more recently he actually "instructs them" - there was even a brief exchange on whether oak trees communicate with their relatives through the soil. Holden and Wilson raised a few eyebrows with some of their scientific claims, not least about the danger of antibiotics in meat. On the whole, though, the guests seemed receptive.
Over the past four decades, Charles has carved out a unique position for himself as an elite activist, tirelessly lobbying and campaigning to promote his concerns. From farming to architecture, medicine to the environment, his opinions, warnings and grumbles are always heard. He spreads his ideas through his writings and speeches, his charities and allies and, behind the scenes, in private meetings and correspondence with government ministers. His interventions matter. Peter Hain, the former cabinet minister who lobbied with Charles for NHS trials of complementary medicine, summed up his influence in this way: "He could get a hearing where all the noble, diligent lobbying of the various different associations in the complementary medicine field found it hard."
Letters, written in black inky scrawl, are a key part of his lobbying arsenal. His carriage on the royal train is fitted with a desk, blotting paper and a stash of red-crested HRH notepaper on which he scrawls his "black spider memos". He writes the memos whenever he can - late at night, after dinner guests have left, even at 35,000ft on the royal jet. "I have travelled with him and within five minutes of takeoff, he is doing his letters," said Patrick Holden. "[At home] he goes back to his desk after dinner. How many of us do that?" Sometimes, the late-night letter writing is so exhausting that the prince, who turned 66 last week, is found asleep at his desk.
It is a habit that has put him in a precarious position. On 24 and 25 November, the supreme court will be asked to decide whether Charles's letters to ministers should remain private. This may be the final chapter of a nine-year legal battle between the Guardian and the government over freedom of information laws. In 2005, this newspaper asked to see letters Charles had written to ministers in 2004 and 2005. The government refused but revealed that Charles had sent 27 letters to several departments over eight months. In October 2012 Dominic Grieve, then attorney general, again vetoed release of the letters, arguing that the public might conclude Charles had been "disagreeing with government policy", which "would be seriously damaging to his role as future monarch because, if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is king".
A former high-ranking government official, who is experienced in handling the prince's interaction with ministers, described the risk to Charles's kingship posed by publication as "quite large". There are, he said, "quite a lot of letters and they say some things that are quite zany".
One letter from February 2002, which was leaked to the Daily Mail, revealed Charles's strident approach. Writing to Lord Irvine, then lord chancellor in the Labour cabinet, he rubbished the Human Rights Act, suggesting that it was "only about the rights of individuals (I am unable to find a list of social responsibilities attached to it) and this betrays a fundamental distortion in social and legal thinking". In another letter to Lord Irvine, written in June 2001, he expressed his worry that the act "will only encourage people to take up causes which will make the pursuit of a sane, civilised and ordered existence ever more difficult", and added that "I, and countless others, dread the very real and growing prospect of an American-style personal injury culture becoming ever more prevalent in this country."
Friends admire him as intelligent and conscientious but, perhaps unfairly, the death of the Queen is a day many dread
Even if the letters remain private, many are concerned at the prospect of Charles continuing his activism as king. His record suggests that he will find it hard to abandon his campaigning approach. Charles has used the phrase "mobilising" to describe his activities; his critics call it "meddling". They view his involvement in political matters as an abuse of the unspoken understanding that the royal family should merely symbolise power, not wield it. Charles has waited longer to succeed than any previous heir to the throne. As his wait reaches its final stages, the question of how he will channel his political instincts when he finally becomes king is becoming a matter of debate in his court, in Whitehall and among his friends. Preparations are being made for a very different monarchy to that of Queen Elizabeth, who has secured acceptance of the constitutional monarchy in part through her strict silence on political affairs. Charles's friends admire him as intelligent, caring and conscientious, but, perhaps unfairly, the death of the Queen is a day many dread.
"A quiet constitutional revolution is afoot," his friend and biographer Jonathan Dimbleby said last year. "I predict that he will go well beyond what any previous constitutional monarch has ever essayed."
* * *
Charles's life, up to now, has been about how to carve meaning from his seven decades of waiting. "The defining question of his life has been, 'What good can I make of this ill-defined role?'" said one well-placed source. But this project has also created a dilemma over how he should reign, once the wait is over.
Charles gained a place at Trinity College Cambridge in 1967 after passing two A-levels (B in History and C in French). He graduated with a 2:2 in archaeology, anthropology and history. By 1970 he had met Camilla Shand (later Parker-Bowles). Over the next decade he had several girlfriends and by the time he became engaged to Lady Diana Spencer in 1981, Camilla had married the cavalry officer, Andrew Parker-Bowles. The royal soap opera soon cranked up into a Hollywood blockbuster: the wedding at St Paul's, the babies, infidelities on both sides, divorce, Diana's shocking death in Paris, national mourning, Elton John at the funeral. The royal family's reputation collapsed under an avalanche of negative press coverage.
I predict that he will go well beyond what any previous constitutional monarch has ever essayed
Jonathan Dimbleby
All this time, Charles had been fashioning a parallel intellectual life, immersing himself in the world of ideas and spirituality. "I was born in 1948, right in the middle of the 20th century, which had dawned amid the gleaming Age of the Machine, the very engine of colossal change in the western world," he wrote in his 2010 treatise Harmony: A New Way of Looking at Our World. "By the mid-1950s, a frenzy of change was sweeping the world in a wave of postwar modernism ... By the 1960s the industrialised countries were well on the way to creating what many imagined would be a limitless Age of Convenience. Even as a teenager I felt deeply disturbed by what seemed to have become a dangerously short-sighted approach." By the 70s, this feeling had hardened, and Charles began to speak out: "I could see very clearly that we were growing numb to the sacred presence that traditional societies feel very deeply."
The ideas Charles set out in Harmony are dizzyingly eclectic, and, at times, verge on a kind of mysticism. He cites the "grammar" of Islamic art "that underpins the whole of life", the "magical" rhythms of gardens and nature, the timelessness of Christian iconography and the symmetry of 16th-century German astronomy, Thomas Aquinas's "eternal law", the Vedic traditions of India, and Chinese Daoism. He is interested by the idea of "a duty to try and achieve an attunement between human nature and the greater scheme of the cosmos".
"He is smarter than you think," said one well-placed source. "He reads widely and deeply all the time at night, when he takes time off, when he travels. It is not so much books. He reads papers and is sent them all the time. If a new paper comes in from the University of Georgia on agriculture in the 21st century he'll read it, understand it and send someone a note about it."
In 1984 Charles launched a lifelong war on modern architecture by publicly criticising proposals for an extension to the National Gallery that he said was "like a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved friend". The plans were dropped. Five years later, he wrote a loftily titled book, A Vision of Britain, in which he explained how the urban reconstruction of the 1960s prompted in him a belief that it was "crazy ... to destroy so much of value and by the dictates of fashion throw the baby out with the bathwater". He quoted GK Chesterton in his call to the quiet majority who, he felt, shared his views: "We are the people of England that never have spoken yet."
From the mid-70s onwards, Charles began setting up charities - not as a patron like his mother, but as president, leading meetings and directing them from St James's Palace under the auspices of his charitable foundation, which he launched in 1979. Promoting his beliefs in the fields of health, work, the environment and architecture, his network of organisations came to handle £100m a year in funds. Friends such as the hedge-fund billionaire, Michael Hintze, donated money and the government provided grants. Charles began appointing experts to advise him, such as the former Friends of the Earth leader, Tony Juniper.
St James's Palace became a kind of grand salon for convening the powerful. Charles's "rainforest summit" in 2009 - where he proposed schemes to limit deforestation and reduce climate change - attracted the then French president Nicolas Sarkozy, then US secretary of state Hillary Clinton and UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon. Charles had established his court as a kind of thinktank, a model that may well follow him to Buckingham Palace. According to a source who has known Charles for many years, the charity network, which employs experts on architecture, regeneration, business and the environment, will be slimmed down but will remain "proactive and entrepreneurial".
Some say Charles's activism reflects not just his personality but the era he was born into. He will be the first British monarch to have gone to school - Gordonstoun in Scotland, which he later described as like "Colditz with kilts". The Queen was brought up in an Edwardian household where the women withdrew after dinner so men could talk among themselves, whereas Prince Charles reached adulthood in the late 1960s, and seized the opportunity provided by his unique role to cultivate relationships with the powerful.
Charles has not spoken publicly about how he might approach kingship, and even privately, aides always imply it is a highly delicate issue because it involves talking about a matter of deepest family sadness - the death of his mother. Yet his desire to think of the long-term consequences of human actions, coupled with the ideas expressed in his writings and many public interventions, offer a clue. In 2010, he told an NBC news crew that he felt "born into this position for a purpose". He explained: "I don't want my grandchildren or yours to come along and say to me, 'Why the hell didn't you come and do something about this?'"
* * *
It sometimes seems that Charles is pushing against the limits of his position, testing what is possible for a constitutional monarch in the 21st century. It is an approach that has alarmed many onlookers. "The main difference [between Charles and his mother] is that the Queen is frightfully discreet about these things and will mention them in private meetings with the prime minister," said a former senior government official. "Prince Charles is much more pushy and writes letters about his views which are on the edge of the mainstream. He pushes them hard and takes a risk. He is much more activist."
Since the beginning of 2012, Prince Charles has held 27 meetings with government ministers. The agendas are kept secret by both the palace and Whitehall, but we know that he has previously lobbied ministers over NHS policy, foxhunting, farming policy, grammar schools and human rights laws. Clarence House says the meetings are essential to the Prince "understanding the workings of government, its departments and its senior members". This knowledge will be necessary, it suggests, when he becomes king.
Over the years, Charles has adopted a number of like-minded politicians as allies. He got to know the former anti-apartheid campaigner, Peter Hain, after he became secretary of state for Wales in 2002. At the time, Hain used to send the prince short briefings twice a year to let him know what was happening in Wales. Later, he began meeting Charles on-on-one at Highgrove, his Gloucestershire mansion, and at his London palace, Clarence House. They discovered a shared enthusiasm for complementary medicine and forged an alliance to introduce it into the NHS. "We just got talking about it," said Hain. "And, as a result, I tried to get the Welsh health minister to run a pilot where GPs could use certain recognised and established complementary therapists, whether osteopaths, chiropractors, nutritionists, homeopaths and acupuncturists." The attempt failed, but in 2007, when Hain was Northern Ireland secretary, he launched a trial, which "absolutely thrilled" the prince.
Prince Charles on his tour of Chester. Photograph: David Levene
Charles took a close interest in Hain's progress. He listened to Hain's interviews on Radio 4's Today programme and gave feedback on his performances. "He wanted to persuade, as I did, the secretary of state for health and colleagues in government to do the same kind of pilot study [on the effectiveness of complementary medicine]," said Hain. "I would speak to colleagues and he would approach it in whatever way he chose. I think it involved letters and meetings. He encouraged me and I encouraged him." During this period, the pair shared a dinner with their wives in the upstairs dining room at Clarence House. Despite the formality of the protocols, Hain said that Charles was "full of humour" and "easy to talk to". Charles sipped a soft drink while the others enjoyed wine from the royal cellar.
Whether it was due to his alliance with Hain or his effort through other channels, the prince's campaign worked. In 2005 his charity, the Foundation for Integrated Health, began receiving £1.1m in Department of Health grants to advise on the regulation of massage, aromatherapy, reflexology and other complementary therapies.
From 1997 to 2003, Michael Meacher, MP for Oldham West and Royton, who was then environment secretary, became another of Charles's cabinet allies. At that time, a debate was raging over whether the UK should allow genetically modified crops to be grown commercially in the UK. In 2008 Charles told the Daily Telegraph that the development of GM crops would be "the biggest disaster, environmentally, of all time". Tony Blair was in favour of GM crops and complained to Peter Mandelson that Charles's lobbying was "unhelpful". (Mandelson later described it as "anti-scientific and irresponsible in the light of food shortages in the developing world".)
Meacher, who was sympathetic to the prince's views, soon received an invitation to Highgrove. "As we went through the Highgrove gardens, I found myself alone with him when we got to a particular place and I think that was probably arranged," Meacher said. "On climate change and on organic farming, we had shared views. We had agreed objectives and we were both going to do what we could to achieve them." At receptions with the prince, Meacher would sometimes "get a message from one of his aides" saying the prince wants to have a word with him. Meacher said he was "obviously pleased" with such invitations. During his time in the cabinet, Charles wrote him eight or nine "encouraging" letters about climate change and the environment.
There is no sign that Charles has let up in recent years. Since the beginning of the year he has held meetings with nine ministers in the UK and Scottish governments including David Cameron, George Osborne and Alex Salmond. In just three days in September he met Liz Truss, the environment secretary, Brandon Lewis, housing minister and John Hayes, transport minister. Then there are the dinners at Highgrove, the prolific letter-writing, and campaigning by the 15 charities of which he is president. It is clear that Charles's "mobilising" machine is running at a high voltage. Will he be willing to step away from the controls when he becomes king? Paul Flynn, a member of the commons political and constitutional reform committee, has predicted that unless he does so, there will be "a big confrontation between the monarchy and parliament".
* * *
On a warm September day, Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall stepped out of a Bentley on to a council estate in Chester, having hopped over from RAF Northholt in a private jet that morning. On the back seats of the car were "his and hers" cushions in case the creamy leather upholstery was insufficiently comfortable. Charles had come to Chester for a day of walkabouts.
Charles at a primary school in Lache, which he last visited in 1972, on the outskirts of Chester. Photograph: David Levene
Within seconds of arriving at his first stop, a primary school in the suburb of Lache, Charles was burbling greetings in a husky baritone to a line of dignitaries who wore pinstripes and fascinators. For a man who is supposed to worry a lot, Charles seemed relaxed - his skin was tanned and his suit immaculate. Somehow alert and detached at once, he skilfully picked people out from the crowd and spent a little time with each of them. He looked for moments of humour and broke into an infectious laugh as often as he could.
Every day, Charles must negotiate some extraordinarily banal conversations, which is inevitable when you initiate small talk with 20 people in 15 minutes, as he did here.
Charles: "What are these bulbs?"
Teacher: "Spring bulbs".
Charles: "Oh, well done."
If he was bored (and he mostly didn't look it), he could be forgiven. A plaque commemorates his last visit to the school. It was 1972. He has been a long time in the same job.
Outside the school gate I asked locals about his impending accession to the throne. Suddenly we were back in the 1990s, the royal family's lowest ebb in recent memory. John Schofield, 74, a retired local government officer was talking to his neighbour Bryan Williams, 47, a gas fitter, before the royal motorcade arrived. Schofield said he liked the family "but I don't think he should be king because of the divorce". Williams agreed. "The crown should go down a generation," he said. "I think Charles is a bit too old and he has been in his mother's wake so long. And a lot of people thought so highly of Diana and her sons have taken on everything she stood for."
A popularity poll in June for ComRes suggested there could be a profound slump in public affection for the monarchy when Charles takes the reins. He scored 43% approval against the Queen's 63%. One former cabinet minister I spoke to agreed with the widespread view that Charles's relationship with Diana was the biggest factor in public antipathy towards him.
"People outside the metropolitan bubble, the people who really care about the monarchy, are still quite upset about what happened," said Catherine Mayer, an editor-at-large of Time Magazine, whose biography of Charles will be published next year. "They are inclined to believe a fiction which sees him as a cynic, an experienced older man who married a much younger bride and then treated her badly."
Even so, Charles strongly believes he has a public mandate to engage with the political side of public life. His allies argue that his right to engage with government is rooted in a profound connection with the British people - not least through hundreds of public engagements each year. He is, they say, "well-placed to relay public opinion [to ministers] on a number of issues".
In 2010 he successfully blocked Richard Rogers's £3bn modernist redevelopment of the Qatar-owned Chelsea Barracks site by complaining to the prime minister of Qatar that it was another "brutalist" development of the kind responsible for "the destruction" of London. At that time, Charles's then private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, said it was his "duty to make sure the views of ordinary people that might not otherwise be heard receive some exposure". Rogers, among others, disagreed. Mr Justice Vos, presiding over a related high court case, criticised Charles's intervention as "unexpected and unwelcome".
But how far should he go in speaking out? On his trip to Canada in May this year, he waded into the Ukraine crisis, telling a 78-year old Jewish woman who had fled the Nazis that Vladimir Putin was "doing just about the same as Hitler". Putin said the statement was unacceptable and "not what kings do". Foreign Office diplomats might have been alarmed, but 51% of British people polled by YouGov said the comments were appropriate and only 36% disapproved.
Many of those who know Charles well believe that, as king, he will not adopt the same discreet style as his mother. As one source put it: "The man the public has seen for the last 40 years is the man the prince is." "He will be true to his beliefs in his contributions," said another source, who has known Prince Charles for many years. "Rather than a complete reinvention to become a monarch in the mould of his mother, the strategy will be to try and continue with his heartfelt interventions, albeit checking each for tone and content to ensure it does not damage the monarchy." Another source spelled out the possible new rules of engagement: "Speeches will have to pass the following test: would it seem odd because the Queen wouldn't have said it - or would it seem dangerous?"
His allies offer assurances that there is no cause for concern. Firstly, they argue that Charles and his officials already have a close working relationship with government and that Charles's team at Clarence House usually shares with ministerial aides any speeches that touch on policy, so that they are ready to iron out problems in advance. Yet it is hard to believe, for instance, that Whitehall cleared Charles's comments about the "tragedy" of the government's slow response, in February, to the floods in southern England.
He will have very firm advice when he comes into office to overcome the habits of a lifetime
What's more, they say, King Charles simply won't have as much time to "mobilise". The monarch's schedule is weighed down by the daily red box of state papers, investitures and formal meetings with incoming and outgoing diplomats and clergy. That, too, sounds a little unrealistic, given the plentiful evidence of the prince's appetite for activism. But one source, who has known him for years, dismissed such concerns: "In private moments, at the end of the day and talking freely, he gets frustrated that people don't think he doesn't understand it is a completely different job being head of state."
"He fundamentally gets the role that the monarch plays in our constitution," one source said. "What politicians are, the monarch is not. Politicians are inherently divisive because they are not standing for the nation. Politicians think in five year cycles, but the monarch thinks long-term."
Meacher said he believes Charles wants to influence politicians when he is king. But, Meacher argued, there should be more transparency, and the public has "a right to know if the king has taken an interest in [an issue] and has written to the relevant minister". Others think Charles must desist altogether. "He will have very firm advice when he comes into office to overcome the habits of a lifetime," said a former top Whitehall official.
* * *
The night before Charles's trip to Chester, four members of Republic, the national campaign for an elected head of state, were plotting the end of the monarchy over carrot cake and tea in a neat suburban house on the outskirts of Altrincham. The area around Manchester and Liverpool, two cities with radical political histories, is a relative stronghold for Republic, but the group still has only 15 regular local activists. Inside the house, flyers and #bornequal badges covered the dining room table, while a banner demanding a republic flopped over a toy. The republicans were preparing to run stalls at Wigan Diggers, a festival celebrating the life of Gerard Winstanley, a Cromwell-era political reformer, and at the Live a Better Life vegan festival, where they planned to focus on the royal family's love of hunting.
Republicanism is still a taboo, the activists said. (In polls over the past decade, support for Britain becoming a republic has remained at only 10 to 20%.) They spoke about embracing their beliefs as if they were coming out of the closet. "I've had feelings along these lines for a long time without knowing where to go with it," said Terry Bates. "And then 30 years later I find out I am not alone in feeling like that." For Bates, the moment of truth came at a packed rugby league stadium in Wigan, when he decided to stay seated as the national anthem was played. "I realised this needed to be my protest in front of 32,000 people in the ground," he said. "Now if I hear it on TV I walk out of the room."
With the Duchess of Cornwall - and Grace the golden eagle outside Chester cathedral. Photograph: David Levene
Charles, said Bates, is a useful "recruiting sergeant" in the republican cause. "Are people going to be singing 'God save our gracious king' with quite as much enthusiasm?" agreed Helen Guest, 36, a former nursing sister. "I don't think so."
But if the middle-aged, beige-clad crowd pressed up against the fence of Chester Cathedral at the royal couple's second event of the day is any indicator, then the answer is yes. Charles and Camilla shook hands, posed for photos and accepted gifts. According to Charles's allies, talk of William and Kate "eclipsing" the prince underestimates his popularity with the baby boomer generation, which remains a key constituency for Charles. In Chester, he seemed to be shoring up support with every handshake.
Inside the cathedral, the strangeness of Prince Charles's life came into focus. Around one corner a choir performed a piece by Charles's favourite composer, CMH Parry. Some modernist choir stalls, installed 15 years ago, caught his disapproving eye. "Doesn't quite go," the prince announced, locking eyes with the senior churchman. "It may be time for a review." Around the next corner were members of the Mercian regiment of soldiers, waiting to shake hands with the prince. Behind them was a group of earnest amateur dramatists, who were poised to enact part of a mystery play. They wore what looked like M&S pashminas as biblical headdresses. Finally, in the cloister, Charles was invited to hold Grace the golden eagle, a magnificent bird who, moments earlier, had evacuated her bowels explosively onto this reporter's notebook.
The day ended with a trip to see a plane wing being assembled at the Airbus factory at Broughton and a reception for the industrial cadets programme, which Charles supports as part of his aim to encourage more young people to take up engineering. Improbably, the meticulously planned cocktail of engagements reflected his interests. Charles had done his bit for the nation's education, youth, faith, heritage, and industry - all in the space of three and a half hours, before his jet roared off into the sky to take him back to London. About an hour's flight - long enough perhaps, for three or four more black spider memos that the rest of us may never see.
Follow the Long Read on Twitter: @gdnlongread
What kind of King will Charles III be? The long read: When Prince Charles becomes king, will he be able to stop his compulsive 'meddling'? And if he can't, what will it mean for the monarchy and the United Kingdom? 33 false The Guardian true http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2014/11/19/1416400893972/Prince-Charles-004.jpg 5076 true 452164206 false 546b7310e4b018fc4f4afbfb 9650798 false Robert Booth 2014-11-20T00:00:00Z 2194794 UK false 2014-11-22T17:30:00Z
LOAD-DATE: November 19, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
247 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 19, 2014 Wednesday 3:52 PM GMT
CO2 emissions must be zero by 2070 to prevent climate disaster, UN says;
'Negative emissions' are needed globally by second half of century to stave off dangerous climate change, say UN scientists
BYLINE: Arthur Neslen, Brussels
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 712 words
The world must cut CO2 emissions to zero by 2070 at the latest to keep global warming below dangerous levels and prevent a global catastrophe, the UN warns.
By 2100, all greenhouse gas emissions - including methane, nitrous oxide and ozone, as well as CO2 - must fall to zero, the United Nationals Environment Programme (Unep) report says, or the world will face what Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists have described as "severe, widespread and irreversible" effects from climate change.
The Unep report published on Wednesday is based on the idea that the planet has a finite 'carbon budget'. Since emissions surged in the late 19 thcentury, some 1,900 Gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 and 1,000 Gt of other greenhouse gases have already been emitted, leaving less than 1,000 Gt of CO2 left to emit before locking the planet in to dangerous temperature rises of more than 2C above pre-industrial levels.
Jacqueline McGlade, Unep's chief scientist, told the Guardian that scientific uncertainties about the remaining carbon budget had diminished and the real uncertainty now was whether politicians had the will to act.
"The big uncertainty is whether you can put enough policies in place from 2020-2030 - in the critical window - to allow the least-cost pathways [to lower emissions and temperatures] to still stand a chance of being followed," she said. "The uncertainties have shifted from the science to the politics."
All scenarios in the Unep report now require some degree of 'negative CO2 emissions' in the second half of the century, through technologies such as carbon capture and storage or, possibly, controversial, planetary wide engineering of the climate known as geoengineering. Unep is "extremely interested" in the subject and is planning a report in the months ahead.
"Once you get behind the scaremongering headlines about the schemes that are planetary scale but over which you have no sense of control, there are other geoengineering ideas, going back to the basics of how to manipulate local water bodies and alter, for example, geothermal productivity," McGlade said. "We haven't even started to skim the surface of what we can do and we shouldn't rule out the possibility that some of these geoengineering ideas could be extremely good innovations."
Consideration should also be given to compensatory schemes for investors in fossil fuels companies to address the ' stranded assets ' issue, McGlade added.
She acknowledged "donor fatigue" ahead of a pledging conference for the Green Climate Fund tomorrow - which has so far racked up close to $10bn (£6.4bn) - and called for up to 20% of the final money pot to come from citizen bonds for local environment projects, with the remaining 80% split between public and private sources.
Maros Sefcovic, the European commission's vice-president for energy union told a Brussels press conference that the report would be of use in preparing bloc positions for next month's Lima climate summit.
"I have never seen such a political momentum to get things done," he said. "We are now at the political critical mass point where political leaders want to succeed with climate change policies, and a have a growing resolve to do so." The EU has not, however, supported Unep's call for zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2100.
Christiana Figueres, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)'s executive secretary, said: "This important report underscores the reality that at some point in the second half of the century, we need to have achieved climate neutrality - or as some term it zero net or net zero - in terms of overall global emissions."
A key theme in the emissions gap study is the cost-effectiveness of taking early action and the dangers of not doing so.
"An increase in global temperature is proportional to the build-up of long-lasting greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, especially CO2," said Achim Steiner, Unep's executive director. "Taking more action now reduces the need for more extreme action later to stay within safe emission limits."
"In a business as usual scenario, where little progress is made in the development and implementation of global climate policies, global greenhouse gas emissions could rise to up to 87GT CO2e by 2050, way beyond safe limits," he added.
LOAD-DATE: November 19, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
248 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 19, 2014 Wednesday 1:46 PM GMT
Senate narrowly rejects controversial Keystone XL pipeline bill;
Coalition of Republicans and Democrats fell just one vote short of 60 needed for controversial bill to pass, despite GOP pledge to take up legislation in January Keystone doesn't mean anything anymore. So why does it mean everything?
BYLINE: Dan Roberts in Washington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 666 words
The most significant attempt yet to force US government approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline failed narrowly to clear the Senate on Tuesday night as a coalition of Republicans and moderate Democrats fell one vote short of the 60 votes needed for the legislation to pass.
Fourteen Democrats, led by Louisiana senator Mary Landrieu, joined all 45 Republicans in voting for the bill, which called for the controversial energy project to be given immediate go-ahead after years of delay due to environmental concerns.
A similar bill was passed in the House of Representatives on Friday.
But, as expected, the bipartisan coalition failed to win over sufficient wavering Democrats, such as Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and independent Maine senator Angus King, who joined the party's leadership and opposed the bill for a total of 41 votes against.
Landrieu, who is fighting to hold on to her seat in a run-off election next month, had called for the bill in a last-ditch effort to shore up her support in Louisiana. She attempted to heal party rifts afterwards, telling reporters in the Senate: "there is no blame, there is only joy in the fight".
Nevertheless the size of the Democratic rebellion may put additional pressure on the White House to approve construction of the pipeline in future if, as promised, Republicans make a fresh attempt to pass legislation when the new Senate is sworn in next January.
Barack Obama has insisted so far that a State Department environmental review of the pipeline, which would run from Canada's booming oil sands to refineries in Texas, should be completed before a final decision is made.
Critics in Congress argue this review process, which has been ongoing for six years in total, is an attempt to park the controversial issue by the White House, which declined earlier on Tuesday to spell out precisely whether Obama would have exercised his veto had the bill passed.
However, environmentalists argue that approving Keystone would commit the US to fully exploiting North American oil deposits that may add considerably to carbon dioxide emissions and climate change.
During six hours of debate leading up to the vote, Landrieu insisted she was not oblivious to climate change risks but argued the largely Canadian tar sands would be exploited regardless of whether pipelines brought the oil to US refineries or not.
"I am not a denier of climate change," she said. "This is America's hour to become energy independent. We don't have to kow-tow to Russia... and we can build a new energy renaissance".
Even her opponents in the Senate paid tribute to her tenacity in pushing the legislation, which is also backed by her Republican challenger in the run-off, congressman Bill Cassidy.
"I just want everyone who might be watching from Louisiana to know that without Mary Landrieu we would not be having this debate," said California Democrat Barbara Boxer.
"We Democrats are a big umbrella. We have senators that agree with big oil philosophy... and we have senators who are pushing clean energy."
The 14 Democrats voting in favour include three who are leaving the Senate in January after they lost their seats in the 4 November midterm elections: Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. John Walsh of Montana, who is also leaving the Senate after he dropped his campaign due to scandal this summer, also voted in favour.
They were joined by Landrieu and nine others, many in close-fought states: Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Michael Bennet of Colorado, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Tom Carper of Delaware, Jon Tester of Montana, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Mark Warner of Virginia.
Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican who will become Senate majority leader in January, insisted there would be a fresh attempt to pass the legislation then.
"I look forward to the new Republican majority taking up and passing the Keystone jobs bill early in the new year," he said.
LOAD-DATE: November 19, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
249 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 19, 2014 Wednesday 12:36 PM GMT
Local authority flood defence funding cut by a third next year;
New cuts to councils' flood budgets in England will leave them under-resourced and ill-prepared, say community groups
BYLINE: Damian Carrington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 660 words
Funding for councils to deal with flooding has been slashed by a third by ministers, prompting community groups and Labour to say the government is going backwards on managing flood risk.
Last winter, the wettest on record, saw devastating flooding across the country and forced David Cameron to reverse earlier cuts to flood defence budgets.
The revelation of the new cuts to council flood budgets in England comes as the Met Office's three-month outlook indicates this winter is likely to be wetter than average. The government's own report concluded in 2012 that flood risk is rising due to climate change.
County councils and unitary authorities have legal responsibilities as Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) such as playing "a lead role in emergency planning and recovery after a flood event ". The responsibilities also include creating flood risk management strategies, investigating the causes of significant floods and raising local awareness, according to the Local Government Association. But the £10m funding now set for 2015-16 is £5m less than in the previous year.
"This is dire," said Paul Cobbing, chief executive of the National Flood Forum, which represents community flood action groups. "LLFAs are at the heart of flood risk management. They are already under-resourced and this puts flood risk management backwards at the very point when a step change forwards is needed."
Mary Dhonau, a national flood campaigner, said: "Cameron stood there saying 'lessons will be learned' and ' money was no object ' and then ministers go and make these sweeping cuts. He has clearly pressed the snooze button yet again and gone back to sleep. LLFAs are very much on the frontline." She said the cuts would mean job losses among council flood staff.
A spokeswoman for the Department of environment, food and rural affairs (Defra) said: "The funding to LLFAs was always going to be initially higher in order to allow them to gather information on local flood risk and understand how to manage the risk. The planned reduction does not affect emergency planning and recovery funding."
She added: "We absolutely recognise the importance of tackling flooding which is why we are investing £3.2bn in flood management and defences. This is more than ever before."
However, a National Audit Office (NAO) report published earlier in November concluded flood spending had actually fallen by 10% under the coalition government, increasing the risk of homes being flooded and leaving half the nation's flood defences with "minimal" maintenance.
Furthermore, the NAO found that despite the higher initial funding, just 14% of LLFAs had managed to publish their flood risk strategies since being required to do so in 2011. "Their workload is absolutely enormous," said Dhonau.
Dan Rogerson, the Lib Dem flooding minister, said on 4 November : "With winter on its way, we need local authorities to play their part in this and ensure they are fully prepared to respond and give clear advice to residents and businesses on how to plan for emergencies."
Maria Eagle, Labour's shadow environment secretary, said: "The public will be looking to the government for assurances that we are better prepared for flooding this winter than we were last year. The news [of LLFA budget cuts] will do little to provide such assurances."
She said: "There is no doubt that flood risk management has gone backwards under this government. David Cameron abandoned the last Labour government's robust plans for reducing flood risk, slashed the budgets, crossed his fingers and hoped for the best." The nation's preparedness for flooding is being debated in parliament on Wednesday.
Climate change is increasing flood risk in Britain by driving more extreme weather events. The government's official advisors, the Committee on Climate Change, calculate there is a £500m hole in the government budget for flood risk management, with damages of £3bn likely to be incurred in the future as a result.
LOAD-DATE: November 19, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
250 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 19, 2014 Wednesday 10:00 AM GMT
Top 7 books on feeding the world;
From eco-friendly farming techniques to the history of food activism - here's what our readers recommend
BYLINE: Charlotte Seager
SECTION: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS NETWORK
LENGTH: 775 words
Feeding our rapidly growing population - anticipated to reach 9.6 billion by 2050 - is one of the world's biggest challenges. Pinpointing the cause is also complex: climate change, broken food systems and globalisation have all been named as culprits of food insecurity. So, what has hindered food security in the past, and what will change its future?
If you've just started working in international development, getting to grips with the latest and best books on this topic can seem a little daunting. From eco-friendly farming techniques to the history of food activism, we asked our community for books which highlight methods that are creating a better, more sustainable food system for the world. Recommended by you, here are a selection of the best.
1. Enough: Why the World's Poorest Starve in a World of Plenty by Roger Thurow and Scott Kilman
Recommended by our readers, this investigative book highlights - in the words of the authors - exactly how "American, British, and European policies have conspired to keep Africa hungry and unable to feed itself". Written by two former American journalists, this read is essential for food activists looking to get clued up on this topical humanitarian issue.
2. The No-nonsense Guide to Food by Wayne Roberts
Pocket-sized and 'highly readable' according to our readers, this book gives a good, broad introduction to the issue of food security. Throughout the book, Roberts draws on examples from Cuba and Malawi to show how motivated governments can help alleviate world hunger. While perhaps too basic for the well-read development worker, this novel provides a starting point for someone looking to understand the key challenges in feeding the world.
3. The Big Pivot: Radically Practical Strategies for a Hotter, Scarcer, and More Open World by Andrew S Winston
Multinational corporations are under scrutiny in our next pick, as Winston explains why current businesses are unsustainable. The only way for companies to exist in future is via a " big pivot" says Winston. He goes on to outline 10 strategies for companies to help build a sustainable in future, using examples from Unilever, Nike and other global brands.
4. The Handbook of Food Research by Anne Murcott, Warren Belasco and Peter Jackson
If you're looking to get up to speed on the latest food research, this is the book for you. This handbook features a variety of academic essays discussing food psychology, politics, history, geography, and economics. It also contains expert insights on key food topics, such as: understanding famine, globalisation, and even the social meaning of meals.
5. The Politics of Food: The Global Conflict Between Food Security and Food Sovereignity by William D Schanbacher
Our current global food system is a violation of human rights, says Schanbacher. This passionate and informative book argues the current model for combating global hunger is too dependent on trade and international agribusiness. Schanbacher puts together a concise argument - examining global trade and corporate monopolisation of the food industry - on why food sovereignty is a more sustainable and effective approach to solving world hunger.
6. The Political Economy of Arab Food Sovereignty by Jane Harrigan
In this energetic read, Jane Harrigan, Professor of Economics at SOAS, offers an insight into the history of food security in the Arab world - discussing the role of food production and overseas land acquisition. Harrigan points out links between the food price crisis, Arab Spring, and the growing practice of foreign land acquisition - perfect for a more in depth look at food production for those working in development.
7. Feeding Frenzy: Land Grabs, Price Spikes, and the World Food Crisis by Paul McMahon
Finally, our readers recommended McMahon's historic book, which traces food trends through the ages and pinpoints the biggest problems in global markets. Notably, he explains why obesity is a problem in certain countries, while others face famine. In this read, McMahon describes how countries can work together towards a more sustainable food system.
Are there any good reads we've missed? Share your suggestions in the comments below.
Read more like this:
· Top 10 books on the climate change movement
· Top 10 books for students of tropical medicine
· Talkpoint: what book shaped your career?
Join our community of development professionals and humanitarians. Follow @GuardianGDP on Twitter.
LOAD-DATE: November 19, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
251 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 19, 2014 Wednesday 7:20 AM GMT
French president François Hollande visits Canberra - politics live;
Senators Sam Dastyari, Jacqui Lambie, John Madigan, Ricky Muir, Peter Whish-Wilson and Nick Xenophon say they will combine to knock out the government's future of financial advice regulations as the French president Francois Hollande visits the capital. All the developments from Canberra, live
BYLINE: Katharine Murphy
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 8616 words
block-time published-time 6.18pm AEST
Bonsoir
The debate in the senate is moving to conclusion, but given we know how it ends, I feel safe to leave you now and regroup in the morning.
Senator Michael Ronaldson in the senate chamber this afternoon in Parliament House, Canberra, Wednesday 19th November 2014 Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia Senator Sam Dastyari in the senate chamber this afternoon in Parliament House, Canberra, Wednesday 19th November 2014 Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
A fascinating day. Thanks for spending it with me.
Today, in politics:
After a marathon filibuster, the senate was poised on Wednesday night to disallow the government's FOFA regulations.
The PUP, teetering on the brink for days, finally blew up. Jacqui Lambie joined cross benchers in undoing the FOFA deal Clive Palmer did with the Abbott government on the FOFA package. Clive demoted her for that effort. Lambie hit back with claims of bullying and initimidation.
Tony Abbott raised climate change before the French president, Francois Hollande did - evidently the prime minister was sick of being ambushed on a subject he didn't care to talk about. The prime minister looked terse: possibly it was having to put up with a question from The Guardian and from Le Monde in a single outing. Possibly it's just been a rough fortnight.
That's your helping. Love your work. Thanks to our dear Bowers, who told such a great visual story today. Round of applause.
See you later.
block-time published-time 6.06pm AEST
Meanwhile.
With Pacific Island leaders. pic.twitter.com/RFjrXbLWvG
- Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) November 19, 2014
Sorry, could not resist. Let's wave to Narendra Modi.
block-time published-time 6.04pm AEST
Praise the Lord. Dear politics. Learn a little lesson today from the newbies.
block-time published-time 6.02pm AEST
Ricky speaks
Here is Ricky Muir, senator for Victoria. He's unhappy to be characterised as a backflipper. (He's been characterised in that fashion today, given he has, in fact backflipped.) It's not fair. We were bombarded when we entered the senate, Muir says. He says he wasn't given an option of talking to constituents. He didn't have full and proper information.
We have an opportunity to revisit the bill.
He says he's not interested in arguments from Labor about Liberals protecting big banks or arguments from Liberals about Labor protecting super funds. He's interested in consumers. That's it.
Muir sits down.
block-time published-time 5.57pm AEST
So many metaphors today. Sooo many.
block-time published-time 5.40pm AEST
Nationals senator John Williams in the senate chamber this afternoon in Parliament House, Canberra, Wednesday 19th November 2014 Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
National senator John Williams has told the chamber that reverting to Labor's FOFA regulations would be like banning all wine in Australia, tomorrow. He's concerned that this abrupt change in the regulatory regime will send small financial planners to the wall. There will be marriage break-ups and suicides, he suspects.
Nationals senator John Williams in the senate chamber this afternoon in Parliament House, Canberra, Wednesday 19th November 2014 Photograph: Mike Bowers /Guardian Australia
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 5.48pm AEST
block-time published-time 5.24pm AEST
Facts: unions give donations to Labor. Big business gives donations to the Coalition. We know. There's no breaking news here. What ordinary people focus on is whether policy passed by parliaments works ultimately in their interests. They don't care about the fight club, or about institutional interests. It's politics which is obsessed with the fight club and with institutional interests. Not people.
block-time published-time 5.17pm AEST
An absolute sweetheart deal for their mates.
That's the Liberal senator Zed Seselja. He's firing off indiscriminately now. Labor in bed with the unions. Jacqui Lambie's a fool who can't be trusted.
Liberal senator Zed Seselja in the senate chamber this afternoon in Parliament House, Canberra, Wednesday 19th November 2014 Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
Seselja :
A coalition of commonsense led by senator Lambie.
I would say to other senators who are contemplating voting with senator Lambie that a coalition of commonsense led by senator Lambie - you have to be somewhat sceptial about (that).
Man.
Time for a bit of plain speaking here. The politics of this are idiotic, truly.
The Liberal senators yelling across the dispatch box today don't seem to grasp that Lambie's apologia will resonate. The message is actually quite powerful. And they are playing for today, not playing the long game. If Lambie's vote is genuinely up for grabs, if she's now outside the Palmer sphere of influence, calling her an idiot is really stupid. There will be more votes. Not just today's vote.
Voters are watching, and listening. Ordinary people are not obsessed with whether super funds are run by unions or not - they just care whether they get fair returns. Same with advisers. Ordinary people just want good advice, they don't fret over who gives it to them.
This is nuts, politically. Cartoonish. Student union Liberal club politics. You really do wonder when these guys are going to wake up.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 5.37pm AEST
block-time published-time 4.53pm AEST
A pit of a pit booool. If I can use that term nicely. A bit of a pit booool.
(Guess the senator. Doug Cameron. A pit bull himself. He's speaking about John Williams, the Nationals senator, who has been a crusader on this issue of dodgy financial advice.)
Cameron:
It's unfortunate senator Williams has gone from being a pit boooool to a bit of a poodle on this issue. The Liberals have got senator Williams under control as they always do; the doormats of the Liberal party.
Pit booools. One and all.
block-time published-time 4.48pm AEST
This whole narrative of the system ranged implacably against the person is the essence of Jacqui Lambie's emerging political character.
She frames up every single issue through this prism. Every single issue.
Quite fascinating in its way. Tells you a lot.
block-time published-time 4.44pm AEST
Here is the full character assessment that Lambie just delivered on her boss, Clive Palmer.
Senator Jacqui Lambie in the senate chamber this afternoon in Parliament House, Canberra, Wednesday 19th November 2014 Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
Jacqui Lambie:
I want to briefly address the sly personal attack that the leader of the Palmer United party has waged against me in public in recent times.
I understand that he's under pressure because of bad political decisions and legal action that's being taken against him.
However that doesn't give him the right to spread hurtful rumours about me in an effort to interfere with free and fair performance of a member of this senate who represents Tasmania.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 5.36pm AEST
block-time published-time 4.37pm AEST
"I will not be told how to vote, not by anyone."
Lambie says she intends to vote with like minded senators. She says she will not be bullied or threatened - she won't be swayed with threats to be dumped from the PUP. She will back the underdogs in a fight.
While it is not a sin to be powerful, it is a sin to abuse that power. It is sin to suck up to power. The big end of town, the billionaires, have been allowed by successive government to abuse their powers.
(Cliev. Awks.)
Lambie is using this speech to go the full beat down on Clive. She understands he's under pressure from poor political judgments and from legal actions. But that's no excuse for intimidation, she says.
I will always vote how my conscience dictates. I will not be told how to vote, not by anyone.
block-time published-time 4.32pm AEST
The most rare of contributions in politics: I got it wrong. I'm sorry.
I've let you down, and I'm sorry.
This is Jacqui Lambie now, apologising for supporting the FOFA deal in the first place.
block-time published-time 4.30pm AEST
Senator Michael Ronaldson in the senate chamber this afternoon in Parliament House, Canberra, Wednesday 19th November 2014 Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
Ronaldson is very fixated on next Thursday. He wants to know why the senate didn't form a sharing circle and hug this one out until next Thursday. We could have sorted this out if only we've waited until next Thursday. We could have been contenders. We could have been compromisers.
There was also an ACDC reference which Ronno fluffed.
This is a really sad day for this place.
(And for ACDC fans.)
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.41pm AEST
block-time published-time 4.20pm AEST
Big unions win. The small business man or woman just gets thrown out.
Thrown out.
Liberal senator Michael Ronaldson, clearing his throat. With some yelling.
block-time published-time 4.18pm AEST
Clusterbusta roster, part two.
Senator Sam Dastyari in the senate chamber this afternoon in Parliament House, Canberra, Wednesday 19th November 2014 Photograph: Mike Bowers /Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 4.03pm AEST
If someone could drop off a cup of tea I'd be most grateful. Black, no sugar.
First speaker for the affirmative, the Labor senator Sam Dastyari.
Dastyari (amongst other arguments) is citing Alan Jones as an authoritative source critiquing the government's FOFA package. Sharks, criminals and conmen. A handful of criminals and conmen have given the financial advice industry a bad name, he says. They need to be drummed out of Dodge.
block-time published-time 3.54pm AEST
I don't want you to get too excited but we are out of the procedural bog. We are OUT OF THE BOG. Here comes the disallowance debate.
block-time published-time 3.49pm AEST
Currently the chamber is considering a motion on a motion. That equates to slow motion. Motion plus motion.
block-time published-time 3.46pm AEST
Things are getting testy in the red room. The senate president, Stephen Parry, a Liberal, has done a very impressive job today of presiding with a very straight bat. He's shut down special pleading from government senators several times. He's just very calmly told Victorian Liberal Michael Ronaldson in not so many words that he won't get the call and he should sit down. Penny Wong will get the call because she's on her feet and she has seniority.
block-time published-time 3.41pm AEST
More quick dispatches from planet blast-off.
Great response! 1000 people have joined me in wanting ABC production to remain in SA. Have you signed it? http://t.co/dlgpdoU5g1#auspol
- Christopher Pyne (@cpyne) November 19, 2014
Christopher Pyne, a senior minister of the government resolved on cutting the ABC's budget, is circulating a petition to make sure the cuts don't impact production in Adelaide. He'd like you to sign it.
block-time published-time 3.34pm AEST
Busta-fil.
By Mike Bowers.
Senator Bob Day in the senate chamber this afternoon in Parliament House, Canberra, Wednesday 19th November 2014 Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia Senator Cory Bernadi in the senate chamber this afternoon in Parliament House, Canberra, Wednesday 19th November 2014 Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia Senator Chris Back in the senate chamber this afternoon in Parliament House, Canberra, Wednesday 19th November 2014 Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 3.28pm AEST
Big questions and inner dorks
Too much bounty, simultaneously.
In the senate - Eric Abetz has a big question. Are Ricky Muir and Jacqui Lambie simple? Are they saying with this backflip that they didn't have the intellectual aptitude to understand the FOFA package the first time round?
(Brave, this bloke. Way brave.)
Outside, Bill Shorten is embracing his inner dork on the ABC and funding cuts. Shorten suggests he wants to defend Shaun Micallef's inalienable right to portray him as a zinger dropping goose every week on Mad as Hell.
Q: Do you believe the ABC's coverage is accurate and impartial?
Shorten:
Yes.
Q: Even Shaun Micallef?
Shorten:
He's funny but I'm still as mad as hell about these cuts.
block-time published-time 3.17pm AEST
Eric Abetz has backed up for a sprint down the long run. He wants to defend the able craftsman of the FOFA regulations, Mathias Cormann.
He also wants to style this as a David versus Goliath battle - the struggling financial adviser in struggle street versus those big nasty industry superannuation funds who control the unions and Labor - or Labor perhaps controls them. It's hard to keep up.
We are for the little guy, Abetz says. Not the big guy in the crowd. (No, sorry, that was China, wasn't it?) Abetz means industry super funds. He says Labor is pursuing this disallowance not for consumers, but for the super funds.
block-time published-time 3.10pm AEST
A vanity project for Sam Dastyari. Liberal senator Mitch Fifield loves this observation. He's given it a solid workout today.
Senator Sam Dastyari in the senate chamber this afternoon in Parliament House, Canberra, Wednesday 19th November 2014 Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
The standing orders have been suspended.
Voting yes: ALP, Greens, Lambie, Madigan, Xenophon, Muir.
Voting no: Coalition, Lazarus, Wang, Day, Leyonhjelm.
block-time published-time 3.02pm AEST
The Liberal senator Chris Back is now standing up for Bob Day's inalienable right to ask one Dorothy Dixer, sorry, probing question, a fortnight. How dare we strip this man of his rights?
Cory Bernardi, on hs feet, with feeling:
There is such a thing as natural justice.
(No, I am not joking. I'm reporting.)
block-time published-time 3.00pm AEST
The finance minister thinks the senate needs to have a rest and a little think. I'd say Cormann needs a rest and a think but he's a machine. I mean this in a complimentary fashion. Cormann is completely indefatigable.
Family First senator Bob Day is unhappy with the subversion too.
Day rises to express his complaint. To fellow crossbenchers, concerning the suspension:
Don't let them get away with this. Where is going to lead?
I only get one question a fortnight. I wasn't aware question time could be suspended.
Let me have my one question a fortnight.
[Meaningful pause.]
Thank you.
[Sits down.]
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 3.05pm AEST
block-time published-time 2.50pm AEST
The opposition have been doing nothing other than playing games all day.
That's Mitch Fifield.
Why aren't you asking more questions about the ABC and SBS, Fifield asks Labor? Question time is an important accountability mechanism, he notes. (This would be the chap who just pretended a few minutes ago there was no pre-election commitment from the Coalition not to cut the ABC and SBS budgets.)
Fifield:
Do your job. Hold us accountable.
Green senator Rachel Siewart says the senate is holding the government accountable for its crook FOFA package. We are holding you accountable, she notes.
block-time published-time 2.40pm AEST
Is this.. subversion I see before me?
The Leader of the Government in the senate Eric Abetz in the senate chamber this afternoon in Parliament House, Canberra, Wednesday 19th November 2014 Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 2.37pm AEST
Rather like Tony Abbott subverted question times most days with routine suspensions of the standing orders during the Gillard years. High level subversion. Ear drum rupturing subversion.
#JustSaying
block-time published-time 2.34pm AEST
Labor moves to bring the FOFA disallowance back
Labor is attempting to push off question time now in an effort to get back onto the main game - the disallowance of the FOFA regulations.
Eric Abetz leaps to his feet.
Question time is being..
.. subVERTED..
he says, with some passion.
Yes, quite.
block-time published-time 2.27pm AEST
Fifield ploughs on with the various formulations the government now invokes in order to pretend it didn't give a clear cut commitment on the broadcasters.
Absurd. Black is not white. Doesn't matter how often you say it.
For the record, this is how Turnbull wrapped in Adelaide - with a defence of the ABC and a challenge to the ABC and some free advice on balance and integrity in ABC coverage.
Now, we all expect a lot from our national broadcasters. We have every right to. Projected expenditure of $6.6bn over the next five years after the proposed savings I've outlined today represents a significant commitment by taxpayers to those two organisations by any reasonable measure.
It's the Australian people who will judge whether or not they are getting value for money. It's the millions of citizens who tune into ABC or SBS each week who will decide whether the government should continue to invest billions of dollars in these two great national institutions on their behalf.
To their credit, the ABC and SBS are well loved and well trusted. Certainly more so than any political party, minister, or indeed angry columnist.
And I've noted before, the role of the public broadcasters in our national life is more important than ever as the business model of newspapers in particular is under threat and newsrooms dwindle.
With this growing importance comes even greater pressure for both ABC and SBS to uphold even higher standards of balance and integrity in their coverage. And I've discussed today, to demonstrate greater professionalism, transparency and efficiency in their handling of scarce public resources.
If the management of the ABC think they cannot find a 5% saving through efficiencies, well, they're selling themselves short. And letting down the people of whose resources and trust they are the custodians.
block-time published-time 2.17pm AEST
Synergies are a wonderful thing. Question time is currently considering the budget cuts to the ABC and SBS, which Turnbull has just confirmed.
The government senate leader Eric Abetz gets a question which he passes to Mitch Fifield, who is representing Turnbull in the senate.
Fifield:
The government never said the ABC and SBS would be immune from savings.
(I suppose that's technically true. They were in opposition when they said no budget cuts.)
block-time published-time 2.13pm AEST
Question time
Running behind - sorry, Turnbull clashed there with the onset of senate question time.
Let's tune in now.
block-time published-time 2.06pm AEST
The cuts to the public broadcasters, according to Turnbull.
The full savings the broadcasters will return to the budget amounts to $308m over 5 years.
For the ABC this means it will receive $5.2bn over 5 years rather than $5.5bn, a saving of $254m or 4.6%.
The ABC expects that it will have implementation costs over this period of $41m in order to achieve those savings.
For the SBS, this means its operating budget will be reduced by $25.2m over the 5-year period or 1.7%.
A legislative change to allow SBS to generate further revenue by changes to its advertising arrangements brings SBS's total savings returned to the budget to $53.7m or 3.7%.
block-time published-time 1.58pm AEST
"These remarks need to be understood in context"
In Adelaide, the communications minister Malcolm Turnbull is currently competing for the most imaginative reframing in history.
He's confirming budget cuts to the ABC and SBS, and massaging the prime minister's clear pre-election commitment not to cut their budgets.
Turnbull:
Is it seriously argued that the public broadcaster should be exempt from the spending cuts that apply to almost every other government department and service?
Some have pointed to a statement made by Tony Abbott on the eve of the election that there would be "no cuts to the ABC or SBS."
These remarks need to be understood in context. Prior to the election many people, including competing media groups, urged the Coalition to take an axe to the ABC in order to curtail their on-air and online activities.
Both Joe Hockey, the shadow treasurer at that time, and I the shadow communications minister, made it quite clear that we had no plans to make cuts of that nature at the public broadcasting.
But if there were to be savings made across the board and plainly there were, the ABC and SBS could not be exempt, could not expect to be exempt from the obligation to contribute by eliminating waste and inefficiencies.
Now unless you believe that Mr Abbott was in that one line on election eve intending to contradict and overrule the very careful statements of intention made by Mr Hockey and myself, his remarks can only be understood in the same context which left open savings of a kind which would not diminish the effective resources ABC and SBS had available to produce content.
(So the Turnbull rationale is what Abbott meant was we won't kill the public broadcasters, not that they wouldn't get a major haircut. Honestly, is it any wonder that most sensible people don't believe a word of what comes out of politicians' mouths?)
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 2.10pm AEST
block-time published-time 1.43pm AEST
This is just so precious I have to do some dialogue.
The President of the French Republic Francois Hollande at a meeting with opposition leader Bill Shorten in Parliament House Canberra this morning, Monday 19th November 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
Bonjour Bill.
Bonjour Francois.
Parlez vous zinger?
Oui, oui.
block-time published-time 1.40pm AEST
My colleague Lenore Taylor has penned some analysis looking through the colour and movement of the day to the consequences of this fracture within the PUP. The senate crap shoot looks likely to intensify.
This is bad news for the Abbott government. It needs six of the eight crossbench votes to pass legislation that is opposed by Labor and the Greens.
When PUP had three votes, that meant that if the Palmer party opposed a bill, it went down. But the government had a pretty good track record of talking Palmer around and winning his support in exchange for relatively small concessions, even on issues he had been vociferously opposed to just weeks previously.
Now - if Lambie's split proves irreconcilable and she eventually stops her self-defeating stance of voting against everything until the government gives way on defence force pay and starts wielding the power of her voting position - the government will have to look for deals with the non-PUP six.
That is a truly eclectic mixture of ex-PUP, ex-DLP, free marketeer LNP, Motoring Enthusiast-and-god-knows-what-else-they-stand-for, Family First and Xenophon, the wily and popular dealmaker from South Australia. It is clearly also bad news for PUP. With two votes instead of three its power is diminished.
block-time published-time 1.32pm AEST
Back with Hollande for a moment. The two leaders have issued a statement pledging cooperation on the return of remains from French museums.
French President Francois Hollande (L) meets Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott (R) at Parliament House in Canberra, Australia, 19 November 2014. Photograph: ALAN PORRITT/EPA
The French and Australian governments have committed to establishing a consultation process aimed at facilitating the return of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' human remains from French public collections. The French and Australian governments are committed to working together on this subject in a spirit of cooperation and mutual understanding. This process aims to take into account both the rights and interests of Australia's Indigenous communities, as well as the objectives and concerns of the international scientific community. Both countries commit to cooperating with the aim of enhancing cultural and scientific exchanges. The French and Australian governments will respect the sensitivities and values of the two countries and consider the requests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities as well as the specific framework of the French legal system.
block-time published-time 1.23pm AEST
Breaking.
A short update on lunchtime dining, given issues are in flux. Freelance spies for Politics Live inform me that Nick Xenophon, Ricky Muir and John Madigan are currently sharing a meal at the parliamentary cafe.
Whether or not this insurgency sticks depends on whether or not this band of brothers (and Jacqui) hang(s) together. The Coalition is doing everything possible to run down the clock in order to buy time to persuade folks like Muir to come back inside the FOFA tent. Today, there's safety in numbers. Or then again, perhaps they just like each other and have a lunchtime bookclub every other Wednesday.
block-time published-time 1.16pm AEST
Breaking.
Today is World Toilet Day.
Just for the recod.
block-time published-time 1.13pm AEST
This is the first window I've had to bring you a radio interview from the PUP leader Clive Palmer this morning. I'm grateful to my colleague Daniel Hurst for the Palmer quotes from 4BC.
Palmer's spin on the disintegration of his senate voting bloc is this is a very sad situation for Jacqui Lambie.
It's very interesting that she hasn't resigned from our party. She knows in her heart that she fully believes in everything we stand for. That's why she hasn't resigned. We hope she can reconcile all those things in the coming days.
Palmer also criticised Motoring Enthusiast Party senator (and voting alliance member) Ricky Muir for changing his mind on FOFA.
Ricky Muir has just done a backflip after he's got the government to accept all the changes that he wanted; he's decided to change his mind when it comes to him delivering on his arrangement. That's very disappointed because it means the government will no longer probably deal with him or be able to rely on whatever he says.
Asked if the Palmer United Party was unravelling, Palmer said:
No, not at all. We've just got one member who's having a few problems. And we've got thousands of members joining every day and we've got to make sure we stay true to what we believe in.
And how long can PUP stay united?
Well we're 100% united, all our members are.
We are united. [Lambie] is just one person, one member out of thousands who's having a particular problem, who hasn't resigned from our party. She was unable to attend the last three party meetings and we've got a responsibility to the other members that we can't put her in a deputy leader's position if she can't even attend the meeting, if she's having that sort of difficulty. We want to take the pressure off her.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.24pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.55pm AEST
To the relief of probably everyone by now, the senate has just clicked back into ordinary business for a bit. I got caught in the Hollande cross current and need to double check - but I think the morning's debate resolved nothing. Labor is trying to bring on the disallowance. The government is trying to talk it out.
I'll keep you posted.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.57pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.47pm AEST
Huddle, huddle, toil and trouble.
Finance minister Mathias Cormann in the senate chamber this morning,in Parliament House, Canberra, Wednesday 19th November 2014 Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
With apologies to the Bard.
The finance minister Mathias Cormann is digging in for a long night. Pure speculation on my part but I reckon there's a filibuster roster being sorted up the back here. (Or, as Bowers would have it, a filibuster cluster.)
Eric Abetz says the crossbenchers have been..
... seduced..
by somebody's dark persuasive arts. Apparently politics is no longer a numbers game. Well it's no longer a numbers game if you don't have the numbers.
Politicians are like goldfish. They endlessly rediscover things.
block-time published-time 12.35pm AEST
Oh, no. Sorry. We are not ascending at all.
The Coalition is continuing to try and filibuster here. Another amendment now from the government leader in the senate, Eric Abetz. Rush of blood. Baby out with bath water. To hell with the consequences. Breathe people, says yoga meister Eric. Breeeeeathe.
block-time published-time 12.32pm AEST
Let's track back now to the madness raging uncontrollably in the red room. We are finally ascending out of procedure-ville. Slowly. I think. All things subject to changes without notice.
Labor's senate leader Penny Wong has moved the motion that the question now be put.
The breaking news is the PUPs (minus Lambie, who is now in the #PUPsUp column) are now back in logical formation - that is, back voting with the Coalition. Lazarus and Wang have voted against the motion requiring that the question be put.
I got a little bit red cordial earlier today when Lazarus and Wang were voting with Lambie on the procedural gumph. I wondered whether they were going to recant on their FOFA deal as well. Not, on current indications.
block-time published-time 12.23pm AEST
Not happy, Tony, by Mike Bowers.
The President of the French Republic Francois Hollande at a joint press conference with Prime Minister Tony Abbott in Parliament House Canberra this morning, Monday 19th November 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
In fairness to Abbott this is very hard territory as a host. You sense your guest may try and embarrass you on an issue you don't really want to talk about. How, then, do you respond? Do you let your guest embarrass you - or do you try and reframe the embarrassment into a positive by taking the initiative?
Abbott chose the latter option. It's a reasonable course. Pretty hard yards to have someone take the platform you give them and use it to give you discomfort.
But perhaps the Abbott redirect would have been better, more defty executed, with some levity rather than with a face like an Easter Island statue. After all, being embarrased by the French president is a less horrible scenario than being embarrassed by America and China.
But today is clearly not a levity day.
Those division bells in the senate - they keep on ringing.
block-time published-time 12.12pm AEST
In terms of foreign fighters, Hollande detailed the legal provisions applying in France, which sound reasonably similar to Australia. I'm pretty sure there was a successful prosecution in France just recently of a fighter returning from the Middle East.
Then the leaders wrap.
(That was a fun tango, wasn't it?)
block-time published-time 12.10pm AEST
The leaders are asked about foreign fighters and free trade.
Abbott is asked whether he wants a free trade deal with the European Union.
Abbott:
Well look, on the free trade deal, we want to move as quickly as we can and I think that Australia has demonstrated that we are capable of moving quickly. Over the last twelve months we've finalised deals with our three largest trading partners, with Korea, with Japan and now with China, so we think it is possible to move quickly.
I'm conscious of the fact that it took Canada, which has already done a deal with the EU, some years to get its deal done; but I think right around the world now there's a determination to move here. Probably the best discussions at the G20 were on trade and the need for freer trade at every level, unilateral, bilateral and multilateral.
Hollande says France is keen to improve market access into Australia (which is funny given how aggressively protectionist Europe is, but anyways, here's what he said.)
In relation to the trade element which is being opened we're very much in favour of this. As the European Union that will bring this forward with a design that has to be very wide ranging and allow for certain products, which currently do not - cannot come into Australia, be admitted and I'm thinking of pork producers who have a lot of difficulty in terms of having their products tasted by Australian consumers.
The French president says he would like the cultural exception to prevail, but we believe it is very important to have this exchange because while coming to Australia - we can access the Asian markets as well.
block-time published-time 12.03pm AEST
The Le Monde question also covered terrorism.
Hollande refers to the activities of Islamic State and the horrific attack overnight in the synagogue in Jerusalem.
We must be very clear that we condemn these sort of actions. We must act and we must be responsible in our actions.
block-time published-time 12.01pm AEST
Abbott says in response to a follow up question from Le Monde on climate change that he's just answered a question from The Guardian on climate change - but he'll say this.
Abbott:
We will be considering our position in terms of targets, in terms of contributions to various funds in coming months. But when it comes to funds, let me just make this observation: We've just passed a law in our parliament to establish a $2.55bn fund over the next four years to purchase abatement. So, this is a very significant fiscal contribution to the task of global emissions reduction, our $2.55bn fund to purchase abatement. That's the first point I make.
We've also got the clean energy finance corporation (CEFC), a $10bn institution which is in the business of funding various projects which have economic and environmental outcomes.
Finally, a significant part of our aid contribution, our overseas aid, particularly in the Pacific, is climate mitigation.
So, Australia is doing a lot and obviously we'll consider what more we can do in the weeks and months ahead.
(The CEFC is the agency that the Coalition intends to abolish. Here it is, again, invoked as a virtue. And best we step quickly past the aid budget, right?)
block-time published-time 11.56am AEST
From my colleague, Lenore Taylor, who does not take the diplomatic cue.
Q: My question is for president Hollande. Mr president, how confident are you that the meeting you will host in Paris next year can reach a successful and ambitious agreement? How important is it that other countries all make contributions to the Green Climate Fund to reach that deal? And when would you like to see other countries put their own individual targets on the table ahead of that meeting?
Hollande, taking the opportunity to express the view he presumably would have expressed if he wasn't just hip-and-shoulder charged by his host:
We have a conference planned in Lima in December of next year, and the basis of the agreement already must be set before then, of course, and there is what we mean when we say a worldwide agreement, a global agreement.
It has to be - it has to be legally binding, and it has to be differentated and it has to have some sort of link with the Green Fund and I do hope that quite a number of countries will be able to join us, and during the whole of 2015 we can have prepatory stages for the Paris conference because what I want to avoid is waiting until the last minute.
Abbott steps in again. He's sounding defensive.
He says Australia has a good story to tell on climate change. He says he agrees with Hollande that the worlds doesn't need another disaster like Copenhagen. Then there's a generalised rebuke.
It was good to hear Francois talking about a binding agreement coming out of Paris. What's important is that the agreement is strong and effective and that the targets are met.
That's the point - targets have to be met and when it comes to Kyoto Australia more than met its reductions targets, and that can't be said of other countries.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.14pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.49am AEST
Hollande takes the diplomatic cue. He goes through the range of topics of mutual agreement - security and counter-terrorism, Iraq, commerce - before coming at the end to global warming.
Hollande:
How can we control the warming, global warming? We know that this is an area where we have potential for creating wealth.
block-time published-time 11.45am AEST
Tony Abbott and Francois Hollande address reporters The President of the French Republic Francois Hollande at a joint press conference with Prime Minister Tony Abbott in Parliament House Canberra this morning, Monday 19th November 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
It's pretty clear that the Abbott government is having a rough day. I think that's a fair statement. I suspect the Australian prime minister must have anticipated a rough joint press conference with the French president, because he's headed off the issue of climate change at the pass.
In a joint press conference, underway now, Abbott has stepped resolutely in front of any opportunity Hollande may have sought at this event to raise the topic of climate change in a negative sense for Australia.
Abbott:
I raised climate change. It's very important that we get strong and effective outcomes from the conference in Paris next year. Climate change is an important subject. It is a subject that the world needs to tackle as a whole. Yes, each country has to do its bit to tackle the emissions problem. We all are doing what we can, Australia as well, and we need a strong and effective agreement from Paris next year.
Australia has been stood up by just about everyone (except Saudi Arabia) on the subject of climate change over the past week or so. Abbott was obviously determined to have the first word today.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.38pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.40am AEST
Much as I'm enjoying senator Bernardi's contribution I must switch modes now. We need the French president. Coming up in the next post.
block-time published-time 11.36am AEST
Macdonald is saying if this FOFA debate proceeds and runs without a gag then Labor won't get an additional estimates hearing tomorrow.
The Liberal senator Cory Bernardi warms to this theme - he's telling the chamber he wanted to use the normal run of business to thank a Labor senate colleague, Claire Moore.
Moore recently defended Bernardi against suggestions he condoned domestic violence. The South Australian Liberal says senator Moore (who has moved these procedural motions this morning) is denying herself the opportunity to hear Bernardi's gushing thanks to her.
Bernardi says Moore stood resolutely with him against the Twitterati and an MP he's never heard of (that's the Labor MP Tim Watts, a chap who Bernardi notes has more product in his hair than Vidal Sassoon) and the forces of progressivism..
... that sought to decapitate a conservative senator.
( Bernardi is full tilt trolling here. It's really very funny. Yes, he did say decapitate. Let the record show.)
block-time published-time 11.26am AEST
For once, senator Cameron is right, I did get a little carried away.
(Labor's Doug Cameron has asked Macdonald to come back to the substance of the motion. Macdonald is happy to snap back to the topic at hand having achieved a digression into an inquiry into Queensland which has been established at the behest of Clive Palmer - who'd like to give Campbell Newman a spot of bother. Macdonald is objecting to this FOFA issue preventing him from attending a committee meeting for an inquiry he doesn't actually support. Don't ask. You don't need to know. Just accept what I'm telling you.)
Macdonald says this motion allows the senate to talk about FOFA all night.
Good, says the Labor senator Sam Dastyari.
Macdonald:
Who said good?
Dastyari:
Me.
Macdonald:
Thank you Senator Dastyari.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.39am AEST
block-time published-time 11.10am AEST
Senator Lam-beeeee, I'm told.
That's the Liberal senator Ian Macdonald, making his presence felt as he generally does.
He's been saying Senator Lamee all morning. Someone has chided him to correct his pronunciation. Lam-beeeeeee.
No-one does nonsensical filibuster quite like Ian Macdonald. At least he's not wearing a mining costume. Not yet, anyway. The day is yet young, and this particular motion is to re-order the hours of business.
block-time published-time 11.03am AEST
By the by, we are still in the procedural weeds here blogans. We've had the motion to suspend. This division now is the motion to give precedence to vary the routine of business. Voting to give precedence: Labor, Greens, Lambie, Lazarus, Wang, Muir, Xenophon, Madigan. Opposed: Coalition, Day Leyonjhelm.
(Bit odd that Lazarus and Wang are voting with Lambie to allow a debate to reconsider the FOFA deal they voted for five minutes ago. But this is the senate. Free range odd is the norm not the exception. Perhaps Lazarus and Wang will overturn the deal too.)
block-time published-time 10.55am AEST
Cormann says the Coalition had an agreement. The government implemented everything the PUP and Ricky Muir wanted. This is bad faith, he suggests.
It is very disappointing for the government. Good public policy is now, sadly getting caught up in internal fighting.
(God. Honestly. You could not script this. Imagine, good public policy getting caught up in in-fighting and rat-f*%#ery. Never happened before. Except all those other times its happened.)
block-time published-time 10.49am AEST
The finance minister is still playing for time. He's trying to convince the senate not to act today. He's asking this be dealt with in an orderly and methodical fashion between now and next Thursday.
Cormann:
There is a more sensible way to go about this.
It is not sensible to ram this through today.
block-time published-time 10.44am AEST
Tactics on the sprint. Glenn Lazarus and Dio Wang hugging it out in the background during procedural motions at forty paces.
Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson in the senate chamber this morning,in Parliament House, Canberra, Wednesday 19th November 2014 Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.17am AEST
block-time published-time 10.34am AEST
The Liberal senator Cory Bernardi wants to amend the motion giving scope for Jacqui Lambie and Ricky Muir to explain their change of heart on the FOFA deal. Cormann is complaining about the senate putting a gun to the head of the financial services industry. Metaphorical guns to the head all over the shop down there.
block-time published-time 10.30am AEST
Labor, the Greens, Ricky Muir, Jacqui Lambie, Nick Xenophon, John Madigan voted to suspend the standing orders.
The Coalition, Bob Day and David Leyonhjelm opposed.
PUP senators Dio Wang and Glenn Lazarus also voted for the suspension.
Lazarus then sought leave to make a short statement. Lazarus confirms that Lambie has been stripped of her position in the PUP, deputy senate leader.
The @PalmerUtdParty has removed @JacquiLambie as party's deputy Senate leader & deputy whip & suspended her rights to attend party meetings
- Clive Palmer (@CliveFPalmer) November 18, 2014
I'm sure she's shattered. Not.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.38am AEST
block-time published-time 10.24am AEST
The non-person
The motion to suspend the standing orders is being voted on now. While we are catching our breath, there has been much meta analysis of websites over the past 24 hours. Jacqui Lambie has dropped the PUP insignia from her website.
Now Jacqui seems to have fallen off the PUP contact list. Have a look.
block-time published-time 10.14am AEST
The lady of the hour.
Senator Jacqui Lambie leaves a press conference in the mural hall of Parliament House Canberra this morning, Wednesday 19th November 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia Fleeing the scrum. Wednesday 19th November 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 10.10am AEST
There really should be theme music. The senate demolition team, by Mike Bowers.
Senators John Madigan, Peter Whish-Wilson, Sam Dastyari, Ricky Muir, Nick Xenephon and Jacqui Lambie on their way to a press conference in the mural hall of Parliament House Canberra this morning, Wednesday 19th November 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
That's the picture of the day.
Now for the quote of the day.
Sam Dastyari, in the senate.
Sometimes in this chamber, we caught caught up with politics.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.11am AEST
block-time published-time 10.07am AEST
Cormann's argument is this ambush is reckless and irresponsible, and will have consequential implications for the financial services industry. That's the point, is the riposte across the chamber. We want the old regime back.
Green senator Peter Whish Wilson rejects Cormann's contention from the last post about delivering for special interests. Whish Wilson says he is representing no institutional interests in this debate. He suggests the Coalition is, however, very adept at delivering
.. for your donors, for you stakeholders.
(Yes, that's how this conversation will roll. Those with delicate constitutions may want to tune out.)
Manager of government business Mitch Fifield is pedalling now in the debate (that's a nice word for filibustering) on the procedural motion.
He notes this issue has become something of a vanity project for the Labor senator Sam Dastyari - who wants to prove to colleagues he's more than a bovver boy, more than a backroom operative.
Take that as a note from one factional operative to another.
block-time published-time 9.55am AEST
Rightio, back to the present. Labor has begun the move to suspend the standing orders in the senate. The Coalition has objected, saying the motion has not been circulated.
Now Cormann is on his feet. He senses a plot. The finance minister says this boilover has nothing to do with the interests of consumers. He says this is Labor delivering for its mates in the trade union movement.
Cormann:
The Labor party is the political arm of the commercial arm of the trade union movement. This is not the way to deal with it.
This regulation has been the law of the land for four months. There is no need to deal with this today.
block-time published-time 9.49am AEST
In order to pass the FOFA package with support from the PUP, the government agreed to changes including:
A requirement for financial advisers to act in the best interests of their clients.
Mandatory fee disclosure statements.
A 14-day cooling off period for financial products, and the right of consumers to change financial advisers.
The agreement was reached through an exchange of letters between Cormann and Palmer, but the changes were immediately panned as tokenistic and meaningless by consumer groups and industry super funds.
block-time published-time 9.44am AEST
The senate has begun today's sitting. There's already a bun fight over the business, and we are not even at FOFA yet.
While they all shout at one another, I'll backtrack slightly.
When Clive Palmer did the deal with the government to pass the FOFA package in July (after saying that he would not do a deal to pass the FOFA package) he made his famous declaration about not needing to consult experts because he had his brain.
Palmer told reporters he had not met any representatives of the financial advice industry to discuss the changes he was considering.
Asked why, Palmer replied:
Because I thought it out.
What happens in parliament house is you get a series of people coming around saying you should do that or you should do this. I drew on my own experience and my own experience in industry, and looked at a couple of other areas of things that I thought were important.
block-time published-time 9.30am AEST
"When you make it wrong, you have to go back in and make it right"
Reporters are trying to get to Lambie, given she's the key person who has changed her mind. Xenophon tries to shield her from questions. In the end, she refuses to be shielded.
Lambie says she expressed reservations to Palmer about the initial FOFA deal.
Lambie:
I told Clive Palmer I had reservations. I believe we allowed it to be watered down.
She says at the point she supported the package she was a newbie and was working out how senate procedures worked.
But..
I've found my way now.
Sometimes when you make it wrong you have to go back in and make it right.
block-time published-time 9.24am AEST
The crossbenchers are having a press conference in the Mural Hall. They are all there. That suggests they intend to follow through with this plan. (You'll forgive my continued hedging. It reflects the experience of the past few months.)
Nick Xenophon is making a statement.
This is genuinely a collaborative effort. Despite our political differences we have banded together as part of a coalition of common sense. Senator Dastyari has long championed this cause in the Senate on behalf of the ALP as has Senator Whish Wilson for the Australian Greens. Senator Madigan has been a steadfast opponent of the government's approach. It is particularly pleasing that Senators Lambie and Muir have listened to the concerns of consumers and particularly victims to come to this position. Our common unequivocal objective is to have the government's financial advice regulations disallowed today in the Senate. Because they unambiguously bad for consumers.
Xenophon says the group will move to disallow the FOFA regulations in the senate this morning. There will be an open-ended debate proposed until the motion is voted on. There will be no gag.
If the regulations are disallowed, it will mean the previous government's regulations will be activated until a sensible compromise can be reached.
block-time published-time 9.08am AEST
I gather the finance minister Mathias Cormann has been working much of the night to try and get crossbenchers - particular Ricky Muir - back in the tent.
The folks planning to derail the FOFA regulations will have a press conference very shortly.
Readers will of course remember that it was Clive Palmer who worked with Cormann to get the FOFA regime passed in the first place. So Lambie's defiance here is very significant.
The PUP is in full scale meltdown. PUP senator Glenn Lazarus has told reporters this morning that he doesn't know what Lambie plans to do - stay with the party, or depart.
I think this debate is now largely academic. If Lambie votes down Clive's deal, she's left the fold.
block-time published-time 8.52am AEST
Good morning and welcome. Apologies for the late start, I confess I've been thinking about things. Dangerous I know, but it has to happen periodically.
It's a mild spring day. Birds are chirping. Lawn mowers are... mowing. Canberra is starting to wind down from the whirl of rock star Indian prime ministers (if I read that construction one more time I think I might scream) and wombat hugging Chinese presidents - although Xi Jinping is still with us, and we'll keep an eye on him later today.
But the international visitation program is not yet over - the French president Francois Hollande is today's special guest in Canberra, although he's not quite special enough to be addressing the parliament. Hollande will meet Tony Abbott later this morning, and hold a couple of public events.
The big boilover of the morning is, however, the government's future of financial advice (FOFA) regulations. A merry band of crossbenchers say they will join with Labor later this morning to knock out the government's regime in the senate.
Now this is the senate crossbench, so nothing is every knocked out until it's knocked out. But if the group holds and does what it say it intends to do, this is a big inconvenience to the Coalition.
It will also be the first time (almost) that the some time PUP Jacqui Lambie has stuck it very publicly to her leader, Clive Palmer.
Senator Jacqui Lambie during question time in the senate this afternoon, Tuesday 18th October 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
I say almost because Lambie on Monday defied a PUP position which was to abstain on a social security bill. But this split today is more significant, more obvious, and it underscores her steady drift into independent territory.
So do jump on board. It promises to be a lively day.
The Politics Live comments thread is open for your business and the Twits are fired right up. You can chat to us there @murpharoo and @mpbowers
LOAD-DATE: November 19, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
252 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 19, 2014 Wednesday 1:13 AM GMT
Senate rejects Keystone XL pipeline bill;
Coalition of Republicans and Democrats fell just one vote short of 60 needed for controversial bill to pass, despite GOP pledge to take up legislation in January Keystone doesn't mean anything anymore. So why does it mean everything?
BYLINE: Dan Roberts in Washington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 666 words
The most significant attempt yet to force US government approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline failed narrowly to clear the Senate on Tuesday night as a coalition of Republicans and moderate Democrats fell one vote short of the 60 votes needed for the legislation to pass.
Fourteen Democrats, led by Louisiana senator Mary Landrieu, joined all 45 Republicans in voting for the bill, which called for the controversial energy project to be given immediate go-ahead after years of delay due to environmental concerns.
A similar bill was passed in the House of Representatives on Friday.
But, as expected, the bipartisan coalition failed to win over sufficient wavering Democrats, such as Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and independent Maine senator Angus King, who joined the party's leadership and opposed the bill for a total of 41 votes against.
Landrieu, who is fighting to hold on to her seat in a run-off election next month, had called for the bill in a last-ditch effort to shore up her support in Louisiana. She attempted to heal party rifts afterwards, telling reporters in the Senate: "there is no blame, there is only joy in the fight".
Nevertheless the size of the Democratic rebellion may put additional pressure on the White House to approve construction of the pipeline in future if, as promised, Republicans make a fresh attempt to pass legislation when the new Senate is sworn in next January.
Barack Obama has insisted so far that a State Department environmental review of the pipeline, which would run from Canada's booming oil sands to refineries in Texas, should be completed before a final decision is made.
Critics in Congress argue this review process, which has been ongoing for six years in total, is an attempt to park the controversial issue by the White House, which declined earlier on Tuesday to spell out precisely whether Obama would have exercised his veto had the bill passed.
However, environmentalists argue that approving Keystone would commit the US to fully exploiting North American oil deposits that may add considerably to carbon dioxide emissions and climate change.
During six hours of debate leading up to the vote, Landrieu insisted she was not oblivious to climate change risks but argued the largely Canadian tar sands would be exploited regardless of whether pipelines brought the oil to US refineries or not.
"I am not a denier of climate change," she said. "This is America's hour to become energy independent. We don't have to kow-tow to Russia... and we can build a new energy renaissance".
Even her opponents in the Senate paid tribute to her tenacity in pushing the legislation, which is also backed by her Republican challenger in the run-off, congressman Bill Cassidy.
"I just want everyone who might be watching from Louisiana to know that without Mary Landrieu we would not be having this debate," said California Democrat Barbara Boxer.
"We Democrats are a big umbrella. We have senators that agree with big oil philosophy... and we have senators who are pushing clean energy."
The 14 Democrats voting in favour include three who are leaving the Senate in January after they lost their seats in the 4 November midterm elections: Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. John Walsh of Montana, who is also leaving the Senate after he dropped his campaign due to scandal this summer, also voted in favour.
They were joined by Landrieu and nine others, many in close-fought states: Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Michael Bennet of Colorado, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Tom Carper of Delaware, Jon Tester of Montana, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Mark Warner of Virginia.
Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican who will become Senate majority leader in January, insisted there would be a fresh attempt to pass the legislation then.
"I look forward to the new Republican majority taking up and passing the Keystone jobs bill early in the new year," he said.
LOAD-DATE: November 19, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
253 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 19, 2014 Wednesday
The International New York Times
The Floating Gardens of Bangladesh
BYLINE: By AMY YEE
SECTION: Section ; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg.
LENGTH: 868 words
CHARBHANGURA, Bangladesh -- Each year the brown waters of the Gumani river swell during the summer monsoon, creeping over the surrounding fields to flood Charbhangura, a village of 2,500 people in the Pabna district of northwest Bangladesh.
From July to October the waters can rise at least 10 feet. The trunks of trees more than 30 feet away from the dry season riverbed show watermarks waist high. When the fields flood, the village's farmers have no work.
''There is water all around,'' said Hafiza Khatun, 25, a mother of two whose family income used to vanish for six months of the year when her farm laborer husband had nothing to do. ''There was no happiness.''
But three years ago, Ms. Khatun was trained by Shidhulai Swanirvar Sangstha, a Bangladeshi nonprofit organization, to tend an unusual source of food and income: a floating farm with a duck coop, fish enclosures and vegetable garden moored by rope to the riverbank.
Five to 10 women can share the structure, splitting about 130,000 taka, or about $1,700, a year. Shidhulai supplies seeds, fish and duck feed and other materials that cost about 10,000 taka.
This money goes a long way in rural Bangladesh, especially for villagers struggling to survive. Ms. Khatun, who has no education and bore the first of her two children when she was 15, previously earned nothing.
Climate change threatens to worsen the severity and duration of floods in low-lying Bangladesh.
Floating farms -- and produce that can flourish in flood conditions -- are a way to help Bangladeshis live with rising waters.
''There is big demand for solutions for climate change-affected areas,'' said Mohammed Rezwan, the founder and executive director of Shidhulai.
With the extra income from selling eggs, fish and vegetables, Ms. Khatun started saving money in a bank for the first time, bought a bed to keep her and her family off wet ground in their dirt-floored home, and helps her husband support the family.
Ducks quacked loudly as Ms. Khatun gathered eggs in the coop, ushering some of them outside to the ''duck run,'' a stretch of water between fish enclosures. She had never raised ducks or fish before the training, Ms. Khatun said, but ''nothing has been very difficult.''
In northern Bangladesh, agricultural land is regularly flooded as rivers are engorged by the annual Himalayan snow melt and monsoon rains. In one of the world's most densely populated countries, where 156 million people live in an area the size of Iowa, thousands are left with no way to earn a living. Many migrate to already overcrowded cities, contributing to urban blight.
Mr. Rezwan founded Shidhulai as a 22-year-old architecture graduate in 1998. That year, disastrous flooding in Bangladesh killed 700 people and left 21 million homeless.
Initially, Mr. Rezwan focused on building schools on boats, and worked to ensure that thousands of children would not fall behind when roads were blocked by floodwaters.
To date, the nonprofit's fleet, which now numbers 22 schools, five health clinics and 10 libraries, has provided continuity of education and other services for more than 70,000 children in villages isolated by seasonal floods.
Four years ago it started to also build floating farms for villagers, and particularly the landless poor, to help them eke out a living during the months of floods.
So far there are 40 floating farms that are worked by about 300 women: Mr. Rezwan has ambitious plans to create 400, to serve 3,000 women and their families in the next few years.
He also argues that the floating farm concept could help other riverine developing countries, as has been the case with floating schools. ''They have the potential to be replicated around the world,'' he said.
Shidhulai's school boats have been copied in several other countries, including the Philippines, Cambodia, Vietnam, Nigeria and Zambia.
A floating farm measures about 56 feet long and 16 feet wide. The coop can house 100 ducks and is equipped with a small solar panel to power lights inside. It floats on empty oil drums, plastic containers and a bamboo platform.
The coop is attached to bamboo rods that make up two rows of fish enclosures where tilapia is farmed in blue plastic nets. The outer rails of bamboo support the garden. They hold old plastic jugs cut in half where villagers grow cucumbers, beans and gourds in soil and natural fertilizer.
Mr. Rezwan took his initial concept for the farms from floating gardens that had been used in southern Bangladesh for hundreds of years. Those gardens layered water hyacinths -- a type of weed -- over bamboo structures and topped the resulting artificial island with soil to grow vegetables.
The design had to be modified however, to suit local conditions. The southern model didn't work in the north, where heavier rains waterlogged the vegetable beds and it was difficult to create drainage. Water hyacinth was also less plentiful in the north.
The duck coop, originally built on a bamboo platform, now rests atop more-buoyant plastic oil drums -- recycled and found materials are enthusiastically used alongside locally grown bamboo.
Villagers can now build the entire structure for the equivalent of $260, which is covered by Shidhulai, Mr. Rezwan said.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/business/energy-environment/bangladesh-farming-on-water-to-prevent-effect-of-rising-waters.html
LOAD-DATE: November 19, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Special Report
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
254 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 19, 2014 Wednesday
Late Edition - Final
Senate Hands Narrow Defeat to Pipeline Bill
BYLINE: By ASHLEY PARKER and CORAL DAVENPORT
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1211 words
WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats, by a single vote, stopped legislation that would have approved construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, one of the most fractious and expensive battles of the Obama presidency.
The vote represented a victory for the environmental movement, but the fight had taken on larger dimensions as a proxy war between Republicans, who argued that the project was vital for job creation, and President Obama, who had delayed a decision on building it.
Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, who is facing a runoff election Dec. 6, had pleaded with her colleagues throughout the day to support the pipeline, leading to a rare suspense-filled roll call in the Senate. But she was ultimately rebuffed and fell short by one. The bill was defeated with 59 votes in favor and 41 against, and Ms. Landrieu needing 60 votes to proceed.
The vote was also a reflection of how a once-obscure pipeline blew up into a national political battle between environmentalists and the oil industry. Although the TransCanada company proposed the pipeline in 2005, it generated so little attention that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was poised to approve it in 2011 with little fanfare.
But at that point, environmentalists looking to press Mr. Obama to act on climate change issues seized it as a potent symbol, leading to protests outside the White House and millions of dollars from environmentalists and the oil industry poured into political races on both sides.
The political fallout, though, affected Ms. Landrieu more than the president, at least in the near term. She was able to persuade 14 Democrats to join all 45 Republicans to support the pipeline, but 40 Democrats and Senator Angus King, independent of Maine, combined to stop the legislation.
Republicans vowed to bring back the Keystone bill as soon as they return in January, when they will hold the majority. Speaking on the Senate floor moments after the vote, Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the incoming majority leader, said that he would immediately bring up a Keystone bill when the new Senate convenes.
''For so many good reasons, we'll be back with this after the first of the year,'' said Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a Republican who is poised to replace Ms. Landrieu as head of the Senate Energy Committee. ''And I believe that the momentum we've gained means we'll see progress and see this bill passed.''
Speaking after her bill was defeated, Ms. Landrieu -- who stood ramrod straight with her hands clasped in front of her, watching over the vote in the center of the Senate floor -- talked about fighting to pass the Keystone bill, but she very well could have been speaking of her own political future.
''I came here 18 years ago, fighting to get here, fighting to stay here, and I'm going to fight for the people of my state until the day that I leave -- I hope that will not be soon,'' Ms. Landrieu said. ''There's only joy in the fight. Where I come from, we just never talk about quitting, and we don't talk about whining.''
But despite cajoling and browbeating her colleagues during a private lunch -- which one attendee described as ''civilized but pretty contentious'' -- Ms. Landrieu, who has so often bulldozed her way to success, was not able to produce that elusive final vote.
At the lunch, Ms. Landrieu made an ''impassioned plea'' that at moments verged on tears, according to a Democrat. Ms. Landrieu, according to the Democrat, focused part of her pitch on how the legislation would help her back home, though at one point she argued that Democrats should send the bill to Mr. Obama's desk because it would help him politically by giving him something to veto.
Given the number of Democrats who supported the bill on Tuesday, Republicans may well be able to muster a filibuster-proof 60 votes to pass the pipeline in the next Congress, but they are still likely to fall a few votes short of 67, the number required to override a presidential veto.
Tuesday's vote exposed to public view some of the contours and rifts in the Democratic Party, where many senators feel they have too often bent over backward to accommodate Ms. Landrieu and protect her Senate seat -- one of the last remaining Democratic seats in the South. They finally revolted, in what they said was a vote of principle against legislation they believe would harm the environment.
Throughout her Senate career, Ms. Landrieu, a moderate who was known as the oil industry's best friend in the Democratic Party, has clashed with the liberal environmental wing of her party.
She has for years pressed for votes on measures that infuriate them, such as expanding offshore drilling, while voting against measures to tackle climate change.
Those lawmakers took to the floor Tuesday to express their opposition to the Keystone pipeline, even as they acknowledged the importance of those votes to Ms. Landrieu's political fate.
Environmental advocates had spent the week lobbying Democrats to ensure they would oppose Ms. Landrieu's bill.
NextGen Climate, the advocacy group founded by the California billionaire Thomas Steyer, who spent over $50 million of his own money to back pro-environment Democrats in 2014, also hit supporters with emails asking them to urge senators to vote against the pipeline measure.
''Today the U.S. Senate decided to stand on the right side of history,'' Mr. Steyer said in a statement after the vote. ''This is a legacy-defining issue where one's position signifies whether they are standing up for or against the next generation on the issue of climate.''
The House, which passed the same legislation on Friday, had voted multiple times already to approve the pipeline. But Tuesday was the first time this year that the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, had agreed to hold a vote on the bill, which he had feared could hurt the re-election chances of some of his more vulnerable members.
Both Ms. Landrieu and her Republican opponent, Representative Bill Cassidy, were eager to take credit for supporting the Keystone bill back home, where their state's economy is heavily dependent on oil-industry jobs. Speaking on the floor, Republicans sought to cast the legislation as ''Congressman Cassidy's Keystone jobs bill,'' while Democrats described it as Ms. Landrieu's brainchild.
Ms. Landrieu had hoped that forcing a vote on the Senate floor would help her show Louisiana voters that she is still fighting for them in Washington.
Even if the Senate had passed the bill, Mr. Obama was not expected to sign it into law.
But the events of this week suggest that the president may eventually approve the pipeline. White House advisers have repeatedly said that they do not intend to make a final decision until a Nebraska court issues a verdict on the route of the pipeline through that state. That decision is expected to come as soon as January, the same month that a Republican-majority Congress can be expected to send another Keystone bill to the president's desk -- one that could be within a few votes of a veto-proof majority.
People familiar with the president's thinking say that in 2015, he might use Keystone as a bargaining chip: He would offer Republicans approval of it in exchange for approval of one of his policies.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/us/politics/keystone-xl-pipeline.html
LOAD-DATE: November 19, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: Senator Mary L. Landrieu worked to build support for the Keystone XL pipeline. (PHOTOGRAPH BY J. SCOTT APPLEWHITE/ASSOCIATED PRESS) (A1)
Senators Joe Manchin III and Mary L. Landrieu spoke to reporters in Washington on Tuesday after the Senate defeated the Keystone XL pipeline project. (PHOTOGRAPH BY STEPHEN CROWLEY/THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A14)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
255 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 19, 2014 Wednesday
Late Edition - Final
A Carbon Tax Could Bolster Green Energy
BYLINE: By EDUARDO PORTER.
Email: eporter@nytimes.com; Twitter: @portereduardo
SECTION: Section B; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; ECONOMIC SCENE; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1357 words
A couple of years ago, the smart money was on wind. In 2012, 13 gigawatts worth of wind-powered electricity generation capacity was installed in the United States, enough to meet the needs of roughly three million homes. That was some 40 percent of all the capacity added to the nation's power grid that year, up from seven gigawatts added in 2011 and just over five in 2010.
But then a federal subsidy ended. Only one gigawatt worth of wind power capacity was installed in 2013. In the first half of 2014, additions totaled 0.835 gigawatts. Facing a Congress controlled by Republicans with little interest in renewable energy, wind power's future suddenly appears much more uncertain.
''Wind is competitive in more and more markets,'' said Letha Tawney at the World Resources Institute. ''But any time there is uncertainty about the production tax credit, it all stops.''
Wobbles on the road to a low-carbon future are hardly unique to the United States. In its latest Energy Technology Perspectives report, the International Energy Agency noted that the deployment of photovoltaic solar- and wind-powered electricity was meeting goals established to help prevent temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the average in the preindustrial era, the limit agreed to by the world's leaders to avoid truly disruptive climatic upheaval.
In the same report, however, the organization noted that other technologies -- bioenergy, geothermal and offshore wind -- were lagging. And it pointed out that worldwide investment in renewable power was slowing, falling to $211 billion in 2013, 22 percent less than in 2011.
These wobbles underscore both the good news and the bad news about the world's halting progress toward reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are capturing heat in the atmosphere and changing the world's climate.
The good news is that humanity is developing promising technologies that could put civilization on a low carbon path that might prevent climate disruption.
These technologies allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to pass new rules aimed at achieving a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from American power plants by 2030, compared with 2005.
They allowed President Obama last week to promise that the United States would curb total greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025 -- a big step that, White House officials say, can be achieved without further action from Congress. And they allowed China to commit to start cutting emissions after 2030.
The bad news is that civilization is mostly not yet on such a low carbon path. While promising technologies to get there have been developed, it is unclear whether nations will muster the political will and mobilize the needed investments to deploy them.
New energy technologies have become decidedly more competitive. The United States' Energy Information Administration projects that the levelized cost of onshore wind energy coming on stream in 2019 -- a measure that includes everything from capital costs to operational outlays -- could be as little as $71 per megawatt-hour measured in 2012 dollars, even without subsidies. This is $16 less than the lower cost projection four years ago for wind energy coming online in 2015.
Similarly, projections for the levelized cost of energy from photovoltaic solar cells have tumbled by more than 40 percent, much faster than the cost projections of energy from coal or natural gas.
Challenges remain to relying on intermittent energy sources like the sun or the wind for power. Still, experts believe that hitching solar and wind plants to gas-fired generators, and using new load management technologies to align demand for power with the variable supply, offer a promising path for aggressively reducing the amount of carbon the power industry pumps into the atmosphere, which accounts for nearly 40 percent of the nation's total carbon dioxide emissions.
And new Energy Information Administration projections to 2040 show prices for renewables falling even lower. By then, electricity from photovoltaic solar plants could be generated for as little as $86.50 per megawatt-hour, without subsidies. In some areas wind-based plants could produce it for as little as $63.40.
Nuclear energy is also becoming more competitive. Without any subsidies, new-generation nuclear power coming on stream in 2040 could cost as little as $80 per megawatt-hour, all costs considered. This is only marginally more expensive than electricity produced with coal or natural gas, even without the added cost of capturing the carbon dioxide.
And there are much more optimistic cost assessments out there than the Energy Information Administration's.
But for all the optimism generated by cheaper renewable fuels, they do not, on their own, put the world on the low-carbon path necessary to keep climate change in check.
Progress is faltering on several fronts. The precipitous fall in the prices of photovoltaic cells from 2008 to 2012 pretty much stopped in 2013, after rapid consolidation of the industry.
The International Energy Agency now projects that installed global nuclear capacity in 2025 will fall 5 percent, to 24 percent below what will be needed to stay on the safe side of climate change. And carbon capture technologies, which will be essential if the world is to keep consuming any form of fossil fuel, remain hampered by high costs, meager investment and scant political commitment.
''The unrelenting rise in coal use without deployment of carbon capture and storage is fundamentally incompatible with climate change objectives,'' noted the International Energy Agency in its Technology Perspectives report.
Despite the falling costs of renewable energy in the United States, the Energy Information Administration's baseline assumptions project that in 2040 only 16.5 percent of electricity generation will come from renewable energy sources, up from some 13 percent today. More than two-thirds will come from coal and gas. Without some carbon capture and storage technology, drastic climate change is almost certainly unavoidable.
What is necessary to get us on a safer path?
White House officials trust that the administration has the tools, including fuel economy and appliance efficiency standards, the Environmental Protection Agency's new limits on power plant emissions and regulations to limit other greenhouse gases.
Yet the Energy Information Administration's projections suggest how hard the task will be. Though they were developed before the Environmental Protection Agency issued its new rules, they included hypothetical outlines that could mimic some of its effects. In one, coal power plants were decommissioned more quickly; in another, subsidies to renewable energy were kept until 2040. In another, the price of renewables fell faster than expected. None of them did much to move the carbon dial.
There is one tool available to trim carbon emissions on a relevant scale: a carbon tax. That solution, however, remains off the table.
If a carbon tax were to be imposed next year, starting at $25 and rising by 5 percent a year, the Energy Information Administration estimates, carbon dioxide emissions from American power plants would fall to only 419 million tons by 2040, about one-fifth of where they are today. Total carbon dioxide emissions from energy in the United States would fall to 3.6 billion tons -- 1.8 billion tons less than today. By providing a monetary incentive, economists say, such a tax would offer by far the most effective way to encourage business and individuals to reduce their use of fossil fuels and invest in alternatives.
Is this enough? No. This proposal still leaves the United States short of the 80 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions that the White House is aiming for and that experts consider necessary by 2050 to prevent climatic havoc. But at least it's in the same order of magnitude.
Most important, perhaps, the Energy Information Administration's estimates make clear that the real constraint lies not in our ability to develop the necessary technologies but in our political will to deploy them.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/business/economy/a-carbon-tax-could-bolster-wobbly-progress-in-renewable-energy.html
LOAD-DATE: November 19, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Construction of carbon capture equipment in July at a Southern Company energy plant in Kemper County, Miss. (PHOTOGRAPH BY AARON PHILLIPS FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES) (B6)
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Economic Analysis
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
256 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Dot Earth)
November 19, 2014 Wednesday
Malaysia's Prime Minister Says Fast-Growing Nations Have Role in Curbing Warming
BYLINE: ANDREW C. REVKIN
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 710 words
HIGHLIGHT: The prime minister of gas-rich Malaysia sees a climate-friendly path ahead.
KUALA LUMPUR - In the opening talk at a two-day meeting here on Asia's clean energy options, Prime Minister Najib Razak of Malaysia provided fresh evidence of a shift in the longstanding diplomatic tussle over who does what to slow global warming.
Building on the new commitments on greenhouse gas emissionspledged by China and the United States, Razak laid out a strategy for his country (facilitated by wealth derived from abundant oil and gas reserves) to become a leader in developing renewable energy and pursuing energy-efficient design. Here are some excerpts from his remarks:
In many ways, Malaysia is a test case for the future energy economy. In less than sixty years, we've gone from an agricultural colony to a fast-developing modern nation. Today, we're a key player in a 600-million strong regional bloc, home to global technology makers and the world's oldest forests. And our growth story continues, as we prepare to become a high income nation by 2020.
As we transform our economy, we face substantial challenges: marrying economic development and environmental protection. Building future-proof energy infrastructure. Preparing our people and our businesses to compete in a low-carbon global economy.
These issues are not unique to Malaysia - they're some of the world's most difficult public policy questions. But they are being asked, and answered, right here. And the way we respond will affect livelihoods and lifestyles everywhere. The fight to shift the world onto a sustainable development path will be won in countries like Malaysia.
Razak described how fast-developing countries can benefit by moving beyond stale debates over which countries are most obligated to act on climate change:
Too often, the climate and energy debate is presented as a problem. Instead of asking who can win big in the new energy future, we squabble over who's going to lose the most. Instead of looking at the limitless potential of human ingenuity, we finger-point over historic emissions. It's all stick, and no carrot. But it doesn't have to be that way.
The new energy economy presents a huge opportunity. I want Malaysia to see the low-carbon future for what it is: a chance to leapfrog those who are stuck on the technologies of the past. I want us to be one of the winners in the new economy. And I think we're starting from a position of strength....
And we have structural advantages that will allow us to capitalize on the changes to come.Fast-developing nations aren't wedded to the same old ideas and ideologies, like some industrialized nations are. We don't have the same vested interest in the Victorian economy, the same sunk capital that holds us back by constricting our ability to move forward. We don't necessarily believe that the best way to generate energy is to set fire to something....
He acknowledged some of the country's problems, particularly with its forests, which remain under assault in many areas:
For all the progress, we haven't always got things right. I was appalled by the recent floods in the Cameron Highlands, which were driven by illegal land clearance [ somecoverage ]. This goes against the grain of everything we are trying to achieve - whether in the Heart of Borneo [ link ], where we are working with our neighbors to protect one of the world's largest and oldest rain forests; or the Central Forest Spine project [ link ], which aims to link four of Peninsular Malaysia's largest forests into a single wildlife sanctuary. We have to learn from our mistakes, as well as our successes.
He circled back to his prime point, on prospering developing countries stepping forward:
I believe fast-developing nations like Malaysia have an important role to play in driving climate action. We can demonstrate that sustainable development isn't an indulgence but can be a precursor for success. We can show other developing countries that economic growth and carbon emissions need not be correlated. And we can help bridge the trust gap between 'developed' and 'developing' countries at the U.N. climate change negotiations.
Here's a link to his full talk as prepared for delivery.
Disclosure note | The conference is run by the International New York Times. I'm there to moderate some panel discussions.
LOAD-DATE: November 19, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
257 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Dot Earth)
November 19, 2014 Wednesday
NASA CO2 Animation Recalls 1859 Account of the Global Flow of this Gas
BYLINE: ANDREW C. REVKIN
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 604 words
HIGHLIGHT: A new NASA visualization and an 1859 account by America’s first oceanographer make the same point about carbon dioxide.
[Video: Watch on YouTube.]A new NASA visualization shows how heat-trapping carbon dioxide from human sources mixes and spreads around the planet, and in so doing recalls for me a stirring 1859 description of the atmosphere written by Matthew Fontaine Maury, widely considered America's first oceanographer. I quoted him in my 1992 book on global warming, centering on this phrase: "It is only he girdling encircling air, that flows above and around all, that makes the whole world kin." Here's the relevant excerpt:
When I was a college student in London some 30 years ago, I stopped by one day at a little book-sellers' fair that convened every lunch hour in the financial district. Among the crumbling leather-bound remains of someone's literary estate, piled high on one of the wooden carts, I found a slim volume called "The Physical Geography of the Sea," by Matthew Fontaine Maury. It was a sea captain's guide to the basics of oceanography and meteorology, published in 1859 by Sampson Low, Son, and Co. The book sat on my shelf, largely unread, until recently, when I opened it and found a chapter entitled, "The Atmosphere." Nowhere else have I seen a passage that so effectively describes the workings of the "spherical shell which surrounds our planet," as the author puts it. And the book speaks powerfully of the importance of treating the atmosphere with respect:
The atmosphere "warms and cools by turns the earth and the living creatures that inhabit it. It draws up vapours from the sea and land, retains them dissolved in itself, or suspended in cisterns of clouds, and throws them down again as rain or dew when they are required.... It affords the gas which vivifies and warms our frames, and receives into itself that which has been polluted by use, and is thrown off as noxious....
"It is only the girdling encircling air, that flows above and around all, that makes the whole world kin. The carbonic acid [carbon dioxide] with which to-day our breathing fills the air, to-morrow seeks its way round the world. The date-trees that grow round the falls of the Nile will drink it in by their leaves... and the palms and bananas of Japan will change it into flowers. The oxygen we are breathing was distilled for us ... by the magnolias of the Susquehanna, and the great trees that skirt the Orinoco and the Amazon.... The rain we see descending was thawed for us out of the icebergs which have watched the polar star for ages, and the lotus lilies have soaked up from the Nile, and exhaled as vapour, snows that rested on the summits of the Alps.
"Hence, to the right-minded mariner, and to him who studies the physical relations of earth, sea, and air, the atmosphere is something more than a shoreless ocean, at the bottom of which he creeps along.... It is an inexhaustible magazine, marvellously adapted for many benign and beneficent purposes.
"Upon the proper working of this machine depends the well being of every plant and animal that inhabits the earth; therefore the management of it, its movements, and the performance of its offices, cannot be left to chance."
Now we have arrived at a time when, voluntarily or involuntarily, humans are indeed "managing" the atmosphere. We had better manage it well.
As I've noted before, I posted the full text of that book online here. It's worth reading now, I think, as a way to put present discussions of greenhouse-driven climate change in broader historical context.
For technical background on the visualization (a mix of observation and computer modeling), visit NASA's website. It's placed in the context of climate policy by Tom Yulsman and Brad Plumer.
LOAD-DATE: November 19, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
258 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 18, 2014 Tuesday 6:19 PM GMT
Revealed: Keystone company's PR blitz to safeguard its backup plan;
Energy East strategy drawn up by public relations firm Edelman calls for thousands of activists, major online campaign and digging into background of opposition groups as methods TransCanada Corporation should use to 'play offence' against its detractors
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1695 words
The company behind the Keystone XL project is engaged in a "perpetual campaign" that would involve putting "intelligent" pressure on opponents and mobilising public support for an entirely Canadian alternative, bypassing Barack Obama and pipeline opposition in the US.
Hours before a Senate vote to force US approval of the Keystone pipeline, the industry playbook to squash opposition to the alternative has been exposed in documents made available to the Guardian.
Strategy documents drafted by the public relations giant Edelman for TransCanada Corporation - which is behind both Keystone and the proposed alternative - offer a rare inside glimpse of the extensive public relations, lobbying, and online and on-the-ground efforts undertaken for pipeline projects. The plans call, among other things, for mobilising 35,000 supporters.
The documents were prepared for Energy East, a project designed to serve as an entirely Canadian alternative to Keystone that is the biggest tar sands pipeline proposed to date.
TransCanada confirmed it was working with Edelman on the campaign and had already put in place the advertising, online hub and mass mobilisation efforts. The pipeline company said it did not work with Edelman on Keystone.
Edelman's response was brief. "We do not talk about the work we do for clients," a spokesman wrote in an email.
The Keystone battle comes to a head on Tuesday when senators will directly challenge Obama and hold a vote to approve the pipeline project.
TransCanada, frustrated by the controversy over Keystone, is already pushing to convert and expand existing pipelines and construct an alternate 2,860-mile route across six provinces and four time zones to New Brunswick. The company sought approval for the project from the Canadian authorities last month.
The strategy for Energy East was dictated by the "new realities of designing, building and operating a major pipeline project in North America", the documents say.
"It is critical to play offence ... We are running a perpetual campaign," they say.
In the five strategy documents, made available to the Guardian by the campaign group Greenpeace, representatives from Edelman's offices in Calgary propose an exhaustive strategy to push through the Energy East project including mobilisation of third-party supporters and opposition research against pipeline opponents.
The documents contain only a fleeting reference to climate change - even though the world's top scientists have found that most of the world's fossil fuels must stay in the ground to avoid catastrophic global warming.
The battle plan drawn up by Edelman for Energy East calls for a budget for the recruitment of 35,000 activists in 2014 alone.
It also involves 40 paid Edelman staff working out of the public relations firm's offices in Washington DC.
Nine TransCanada employees will also work on the campaign, according to the documents.
The digital hub of the campaign, a microsite about Energy East, has already been launched.
Edelman says in the documents that the strategy was forged in the battles over Keystone XL and other US energy projects.
"In North America pipelines have become proxies for the broader, contentious debate around climate change and oil sands development," the documents say.
The Alberta tar sands are the world's third-largest known carbon store. The United Nations climate science panel, the IPCC, has said that most of the world's fossil fuels must stay in the ground to avoid catastrophic climate change.
Energy East is the longest pipeline proposed to date and also the highest capacity; if built, it would pump up to 1.1m barrels a day.
In the wake of the Keystone XL opposition and a pipeline spill in 2010 in Kalamazoo, Michigan, oil industry projects now face "permanent, persuasive, nimble and well-funded opposition groups", in Edelman's words.
But the documents say the oil industry and public relations firms have developed an effective strategy to beat back those opponents through online organising.
Industry mobilised a million activists and generated more than 500,000 pro-Keystone comments during the public comment period, one of the documents says.
"It's not just associations or advocacy groups building these programs in support of the industry. Companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and Halliburton (and many more) have all made key investments in building permanent advocacy assets and programs to support their lobbying, outreach and policy efforts," the documents say. "TransCanada will be in good company."
"This approach strives to neutralize risk before it is leveled, respond directly to issues or attacks as they arise, and apply pressure - intelligently - on opponents, as appropriate," the documents say.
The documents say Edelman and TransCanada should "work with third parties to pressure Energy East opponents".
They advise : "Add layers of difficulty for our opponents, distracting them from their mission and causing them to redirect their resources," and warn: "We cannot allow our opponents to have a free pass. They will use every piece of information they can find to attack TransCanada and this project."
Recruiting allies to deliver the pro-pipeline message is critical, Edelman says in the documents. "Third-party voices must also be identified, recruited and heard to build an echo chamber of aligned voices."
Edelman also offers "detailed background research on key opposition groups" such as Council of Canadians, Equiterre, the David Suzuki Foundation, Avaaz and Ecology Ottawa.
The research would use public records, financial disclosures, legal databases and social media.
TransCanada said it had been working with Edelman for several months but had not adopted all of the recommendations in the documents. "We have moved forward with implementing certain components of the strategy," spokesman Shawn Howard said. "Those include our paid media campaigns in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, our online components with the launch of our energyeastpipeline.com microsite in French and English, and our advocacy program, which allows those who support the project an opportunity to speak out and share their personal stories."
Howard said TransCanada had recruited 2,500 supporters for its project in the last two weeks. He also defended the hardball approach to pipeline opponents.
"One of the lessons that we have learned on Keystone XL is the importance of holding opponents accountable for the claims they make. Just as our shareholders and the business community hold our organization accountable for our actions, we too feel a duty to ensure that well-organized global opponents are held to the standard of accountability and transparency," he wrote. "We will not apologize for promoting the value of the industry ... We are proud of this project."
The campaign group Avaaz, one of the potential targets of the opposition research, called on Edelman to sever its connections with the campaign.
"Edelman's cynical plan to smear citizens groups shows how low fossil fuel companies will stoop to protect their profits in the face of rising seas, melting ice caps and millions calling for climate action," Alex Wilks, a campaign director in New York, wrote in an email. "Edelman must cancel its TransCanada contract and stop promoting one of the world's dirtiest oil pipelines."
The Council of Canadians, another targeted group, said the ambitious scale of the PR pitch suggested TransCanada was concerned about growing opposition to the project. "What this speaks to is that they are losing," said Andrea Harden-Donaghue, climate campaigner for the council. "What these documents reveal is that they are bringing tea party activists into the equation in Canada combined with a heavy-handed advertising campaign. They are clearly spending a lot of time and thought on our efforts. I'd rather see them address the concerns that we are raising."
Edelman, the world's biggest privately held PR firm, has previously been drawn into controversies about its position on climate change. It declared on 7 August that it would no longer take on campaigns that deny global warming.
The declaration followed those by other top PR companies in response to a report in the Guardian.
However, Edelman pointedly did not rule out campaigns opposing environmental regulations or promoting the fossil fuel industry.
Greenpeace said the precise scope and scale of the work TransCanada has contracted with Edelman is unknown, although the campaign group noted that TransCanada has recently launched the advocacy micro-site described in these documents.
The development of an all-Canada alternative to the Keystone XL reflects growing industry frustration with the repeated delays of the US project.
TransCanada has been pushing to transport crude from Alberta to the refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast since 2008 - but has been blocked by legal challenges and grassroots opposition from Nebraska landowners and environmental activists who framed the project as a test of Obama's environmental credentials.
Obama has repeatedly put off a decision on the pipeline. But the day of reckoning is now fast approaching after the Republican takeover of the Senate in mid-term elections.
The House of Representatives voted on Friday to approve the pipeline. The Senate is just one vote shy of the 60 needed to cut off debate and vote on the pipeline.
Neither chamber is believed to have enough votes to override a presidential veto - and the White House has indicated Obama will use his veto to stop Congress forcing approval.
Unlike Keystone the route of the Energy East pipeline falls entirely within Canada's borders. But its purpose is similar: finding a route to get the vast carbon store of the Alberta tar sands to market.
In the case of Keystone XL, TransCanada is seeking to pump crude oil from the tar sands of Alberta to the Gulf Coast where it can be processed in the Texas refinery town of Port Arthur and exported through the Gulf of Mexico.
In the case of Energy East, TransCanada will convert and expand existing natural gas pipelines to deliver the oil to Saint John, New Brunswick, where there are refineries, and from where it can be shipped to supertankers in the Gulf of Mexico.
LOAD-DATE: November 20, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
259 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 18, 2014 Tuesday 1:20 PM GMT
One man's fight to join the board of Australia's largest mining company;
Ian Dunlop has applied to join the Board of BHP Billiton for the second time in the belief that business is not doing enough to act on climate change
BYLINE: Ian Dunlop
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 1052 words
Over the last 30 years nothing has been done to address human-caused climate change. Even after progress at the G20 Brisbane meeting, it is evident that conventional politics will never provide the strong leadership required to avoid severe climatic impacts. In its absence, business in its own self-interest, must act.
In 2013, as a shareholder, I nominated to join the board of BHP Billiton (BHPB), Australia's largest mining company, on the grounds that it needed to take more urgent action to address climate change and its destructive impact on shareholder value.
BHPB to its credit, has been relatively advanced in acknowledging these issues, albeit this does not say a great deal in an industry still largely in denial. The board recommended against my appointment on the grounds that matters were well in hand. I received 4% of the shareholder vote, compared to the 50% required.
Since then, BHPB has released a new climate change policy which is setting a new standard for the industry. However, much greater change is needed.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its bluntest warning yet in its 2014 Synthesis Report, calling for urgent action if "severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts" are to be avoided. The International Energy Agency's 2014 World Energy Outlook warns that current and planned policies will lead to temperature increase in excess of 4C. To contain temperature below the official 2C target requires global emissions to peak within five years and then reduce rapidly.
Even then, evidence suggests that a 2C temperature increase will halt population growth in large parts of the world. A 4C increase will see substantial population decline, with escalating social conflict.
Why is this important? The prosperity of BHPB depends upon a stable and growing global economy. This is incompatible with even a 2C temperature increase. Growth now depends upon rapid transition to a low-carbon world. Stability requires urgent action, as further delay is cutting off our options to make that transition in good order.
In 2014, I have again nominated to join the BHPB Board as I believe the company is still failing to understand the enormity of the challenge that climate change poses to its business.
Its risk management approach shows no sign of real urgency. It must go beyond the conservative IPCC conclusions to encompass the implications of the positive feedback "tipping points" which are already becoming evident in the Arctic, Antarctic and elsewhere.
BHPB's new policy implies temperature increase of around 3C, which would be extremely damaging to shareholder value. It assumes that "fossil fuels will continue to be a significant part of the energy mix for decades", which in a world with virtually no carbon budget remaining today, is nothing less than suicidal unless emergency programmes are initiated to make solutions such as carbon capture and storage work. There is no sign of BHPB, or industry, making that commitment.
The Minerals Council of Australia, and the Business Council of Australia, both of which count BHPB as a member, continue to undermine sensible national policy development, and BHPB itself has done nothing to contest the Australian government's blatant climate change denialism.
Most importantly, BHPB's strategy must move away from incrementally changing business-as-usual, to focus on rapid transition to the low-carbon economy, not least to avoid losing major opportunities for shareholder value creation.
The board now recommends against my appointment on the grounds that my experience and expertise do not meet the requirements of a BHPB non-executive director. This response highlights governance issues which have lain dormant for years, as remuneration-driven short-termism has dominated corporate thinking.
I have the greatest respect for the competence of the existing board in a conventional sense. However, these are not conventional times and those self-same conventional skills are blinding the board to the great changes already taking place in the climate and energy arena.
Conventional recruitment processes ensure that directors are appointed in the existing board's own image. While this may have been acceptable in the days of relatively predictable growth, in creating the low-carbon world we are in the midst of the greatest discontinuity, and opportunity, the world has ever seen. Company prosperity now depends upon avoiding myopic "groupthink" by complementing conventional skills with further board diversity and unconventional perspectives.
At the most fundamental level, it raises yet again the question of "what is a company for?" Is it to follow, and be shaped by, the dictates of governments and the market, optimising short-term returns? Or is it to use its undoubted influence and expertise in shaping the future?
Despite having access to the best possible scientific and risk advice, corporate leaders including BHPB, seem to take the former view. As a result, we are witnessing a fundamental failure of risk management and corporate governance, as directors, in underplaying the real risks of climate change, abrogate their fiduciary responsibility to objectively assess and manage those risks and opportunities in the interests of their companies in perpetuity. Investors, with some notable exceptions, are equally complicit for not insisting that boards of directors take far more vigorous action.
BHPB, along with like-minded progressive organisations and investors, in their own self-interest must now publicly articulate the need for, and implement, radical action.
Read more stories like this:
BHP Billiton: climate change leader or laggard?
Climate activists warn BHP Billiton shareholders of coal's profit risk
Ian Dunlop is a former international oil, gas and coal industry executive, chair of the Australian Coal Association and CEO of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. The BHPB Limited AGM is in Adelaide on 20th November 2014.
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: November 18, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
260 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 18, 2014 Tuesday 9:26 AM GMT
Rich countries 'backsliding' on climate finance;
$10bn pledged for Green Climate Fund to help countries cope with global warming falls short of original commitment, say UN observers
BYLINE: John Vidal
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 833 words
The $10bn (£6bn) in climate aid which Britain and other rich countries are expected to formally pledge this week represents a backsliding on earlier climate finance transfers, according to observers.
Countries are together expected to offer around $10bn to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) at a meeting in Berlin on Thursday, with the UK becoming one of the world's largest contributors with an expected pledge of about $1bn.
The $10bn total figure is at the bottom end of the $10-15bn target set by the UN last year for countries to meet before next month's UN climate summit in Lima, Peru.
"We are not applauding the announcements [of pledges] yet," said Meena Raman, an official observer on the GCF board, representing civil society from developing countries. "The devil will be in the details of these contributions - whether they come with conditions; whether they are grants or loans; and whether the amounts are earmarked for specific purposes."
The contributions, which include $3bn from the US and $1.5bn from Japan, are to be spread over four years and could be a third lower a year than was pledged for developing countries at the UN climate summit in Cancun in 2010.
"It appears that the current pledges... will be close to $10bn and for the four year period of 2015-2018. This is really not much given the scale of the challenge. In 2009 the [fast track] funds were supposed to be $30bn for three years (2010-2012) - or $10bn a year. $10bn over four years for the GCF is actually a backsliding of efforts," said Raman.
The GCF, a new UN institution expected to start disbursing money next year, will channel it primarily from developed to developing countries to help them adapt their cities and farming to the more severe floods, heatwaves and sea level rises that are being experienced with climate change, as well as cut their emissions.
It is expected to be the world's premier international climate fund, with a goal of making at least $100bn available a year by 2020. This is seen as the minimum amount of money that over 150 developing countries will need to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
Control of the fund is already proving highly contentious. Developing countries are concerned that in GCF board meetings rich countries have fought to be able to target their contributions to the fund's private sector facility, which could help their own big corporations to profit from "green" investments in developing countries.
Developed countries have also wanted board-voting to be linked to contributions in the event of a lack of consensus in decision-making. This, say poor countries, would make the GCF similar to the World Bank which is widely seen to favour the interests of rich countries.
Other concerns are that rich countries will seek to direct most money to reduce emissions rather than help poorer countries adapt to climate change.
"The GCF is starting to look like a credible multilateral bank. But it needs to be hugely expanded," said Kevin Watkins, director of the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), the UK's leading independent thinktank on international development.
"There's a tension here between mitigation and adaptation. There are a large number of low income countries who will [shortly] be dealing with serious adaptation issues. There is a risk that mitigation could trump adaptation, and push out the world's poorest countries," he said.
Many G20 countries including the UK, Saudi Arabia and Italy have yet to pledge money but observers are pleased that developing countries, including Mexico ($10m), South Korea ($100m) and Indonesia ($200,000) have offered money to the fund.
With finance one of the keys to a successful climate deal in 2015, developing countries also want assurances that any money pledged will be newand additional, as the UN wants, and not recycled from existing aid budgets. The UK's contribution will come from its International Climate Fund which it set up in 2012 to provide £3.87bn between April 2011 and March 2016. The US contribution is $1bn higher than the previous US commitment of $2bn but it is unclear whether the funding will have to be approved by the US Congress.
Some GCF climate finance trackers are now far more optimistic that a global climate deal will be reached at a climate summit in Paris in 2015.
"These pledges bring us a giant step closer to reaching a global climate agreement in Paris. These financial commitments send a strong signal that countries are willing to step up to the plate at home and abroad to curb emissions and help communities prepare for the consequences of climate change," said Athena Ballesteros, finance centre director of the World Resources Institute.
But others questioned the scale of the pledges. "US military spending topped $575bn last year alone. While it's welcome, a White House pledge of $3bn over four years to climate security is a drop in the bucket by comparison," said Janet Redman, climate policy programme director at the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies.
LOAD-DATE: November 18, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
261 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 18, 2014 Tuesday 8:24 AM GMT
David Cameron's Commons statement on the G20 summit: Politics Live blog;
Rolling coverage of all the day's political developments as they happen, including this morning's Rochester byelection hustings on BBC Radio Kent and David Cameron's statement on the G20 summit.Rochester byelection hustings - Summary and verdictLunchtime summaryAfternoon summary, including highlights from Cameron's statement
BYLINE: Andrew Sparrow
SECTION: POLITICS
LENGTH: 8241 words
block-time published-time 6.05pm GMT
Afternoon summary
Ed Miliband has accused David Cameron getting his "excuses in early" and blaming global factors for the failure of the government's economic strategy. Speaking in the House of Commons, Miliband said that Cameron tried to say that Labour was to blame for all the economic problems before 2010, but was now saying global factors were to blame for the problems currently facing the problems. Cameron, who was in the Commons for a statement on the G20, rejected this. You can read the full exchanges at 5.07pm.
Cameron has refused to comment on suggestions that the government deficit-reduction programme is falling further behind schedule. When Labour's John Woodcock put this idea to Cameron, he just said that the government had cut the defici by a third and that the latest figures would be announced, as usual, in the autumn statement.
Cameron has urged MPs to quash some of the "wholly false arguments" being made about the impact of the EU/US free trade deal, the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP) on the NHS. Campaigners claim that it will lead to American firms having the right to take over legal services. Cameron said that Karel de Gucht, the EU's trade commissioner, has explicitly denied this. (See 4.58pm.) He told MPs:
We need to work hard to quash some of the wholly false arguments that are being put about by opponents of TTIP. This does not in any way have to affect our national health service.
Cameron also claimed that there was nothing sinister about the inclusion of an investor state dispute settlement provision (ISDS) in the TTIP. These were a feature of every trade deal Britain has signed, he said, and he claimed Britain had never lost a case. He also claimed that some people who were lobbying MPs about this did not fully understand the issues.
I do think, and I hope as members of parliament we can all try to do this, when you get that barrage of emails - people sometimes have signed up without fully understanding every part of what they've been asked to sign - people want to spread some fear about this thing, and we have a role, I think, of trying to explain properly why these things are good for our country.
He said the European Central Bank should adopt a more activist stance to promote growth in Europe.
Britain and America have shown that an active monetary policy, delivered by an independent central bank, can make a real difference. And I think, with the signs of rather staggered growth in Europe, then there's a need for the European Central Bank to take that action as well.
He signalled that he was planning to give the Charity Commission new powers to stop extremists abusing charity law. Charities could also be given legal advice to help them expel extremists, he hinted.
There is a problem with some charities that have had charity status that have used their existence to support extremism or the extremist narrative. There are two things we need to do here, which we have been looking at through the extremism taskforce. One is to help organisations who might need to take lawyers or legal advice to throw extremists out of their organisations. The second is to make sure the Charity Commission has the resources and the teeth it needs, including possibly new legal powers, so it can take action too.
He signalled that he would approve of extremists fighting with Islamic State being charged with treason. (See 5.13pm.)
The Tory former chief whip Andrew Mitchell is a "Jekyll and Hyde" character with a mixture of charm and menace, his libel trial against the Sun newspaper over the Plebgate affair has heard.
Kelly Tolhurst, the Conservative byelection candidate in Rochester and Strood, has suggested some voters are worried that having a Ukip MP as their local representative could lead to a drop in house prices.
Liz Truss, the environment secretary, has announced measures to deal with an outbreak of avian flu at a duck breeding farm in Yorkshire.
That's all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
block-time published-time 5.15pm GMT
Peter Bone, a Conservative, asks if President Putin really left early because he was tired. Or was it because, like most bullies, he didn't like someone standing up to him.
Cameron says he does not know why Putin left early. He says his view is that you should always stay to the end at summits like this, unless something gets agreed that you disagree with.
And that's it. The statement is over.
I'll post a summary shortly.
block-time published-time 5.13pm GMT
Philip Hollobone, a Conservative, says Britons who fight with Islamist State should be prosecuted for treason.
Cameron says he agrees. These people should face the full force of the law, he says.
block-time published-time 5.07pm GMT
Miliband versus Cameron on the economy
The most interesting aspect of the exchanges between Cameron and Miliband was what they both had to say about the global economy.
Miliband accused Cameron of getting his excuses in early.
Today you tell us there are red lights flashing in the global economy.
I think that is what is known as getting your excuses in early.
You used to tell us that the problems in the British economy were all to do with the British government and nothing to do with international factors.
Now, you want to tell us that on your watch they're all to do with international factors and nothing to do with the British government.
Isn't the truth that before you went to Brisbane we already knew your export targets were off track and the trade deficit is the highest it's been for 25 years?
Before you went to Brisbane, we knew that Britain's productivity had stagnated on your watch.
Before you went to Brisbane, we knew that average families were £1,600 a year worse off.
You have gone from saying everything is fixed thanks to you to everything is not fixed but is nothing to do with you.
All along you should have been listening to the British people who see deep problems in an economy not working for them.
Isn't it time you stopped blaming everybody else for an economy that's great for a few people at the top but isn't delivering for most working people?
Cameron said he was happy to debate Miliband on this.
I'm very happy to defend and take some credit for what is happening in the British economy - growing at 3%, the biggest fall in unemployment on record, 400,000 new businesses.
Because of the difficult decisions that we took, the British economy is doing well.
The difference I would say is now while there are problems in the world economy, you can actually see that Britain is outperforming other countries in the world and the figures speak for themselves.
Cameron also ended with a jibe at Miliband.
Can I say what a pleasure it always is to get back to Britain and find some things haven't changed - our language, the beauties of our climate and that crucially you are still in your place?
(I've taken the quote from the Press Association. Before someone starts complaining BTL, I think they've turned an "right honourable gentleman" into a "you".)
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 5.15pm GMT
block-time published-time 5.00pm GMT
Labour's Andy Sawford asks which prime minister turned up to the discussion on climate change: the one who said he wanted to hug a husky, or the one who said he wanted to cut the crap.
Cameron says it was the one who set up the green investment bank, and the one who commissioned a new nuclear power station when Labour did nothing to restart the nuclear programme.
block-time published-time 4.58pm GMT
Here is the quote that David Cameron cited earlier, from Karel de Gucht, the EU trade commissioner, saying the NHS would not be covered by the free trade provisions in TTIP (which allegedly could open it up to services being taken over by a US firm). It's in this BBC story. De Gucht said:
Public services are always exempted - there is no problem about exemption. The argument is abused in your country for political reasons but it has no grounds.
block-time published-time 4.52pm GMT
Labour's Sheila Gilmore asks why the NHS cannot be formally exempted from TTIP.
Cameron says these ideas can be discussed. But there is not point raising unnecessary fears amongst the public.
block-time published-time 4.48pm GMT
Margaret Ritchie, the SDLP MP, asks if a devolve administration could be forced to pay money to a private company under an investor state dispute settlement (ISDS) under TTIP.
Cameron says these ISDS arrangements have been part of every trade deal Britain has signed. And Britain has never lost a case, he says.
block-time published-time 4.47pm GMT
John Baron, a Conservative, says the problem with talking loudly and carrying a small stick is that you get found out by the bullies.
Camerons says he does not accept that. Britain has one of the top five defence budgets in the word. Two new aircraft carriers are being built, and destroyers. Britain has a full set of capabilities. We should not talk it down.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 6.19pm GMT
block-time published-time 4.45pm GMT
Cameron says a former EU trade commissioner said there was "no problem" about public services being exempted form TTIP and that these arguments were being abused "for political reasons".
block-time published-time 4.44pm GMT
Labour's Gisela Stuart asks why Cameron is so sure that the NHS will not be covered by TTIP.
Cameron says what makes him confident is a statement from the European Commission about states having the right to keep their health service in the public sector.
Politicians should challenge the things being said about TTIP, he says.
block-time published-time 4.43pm GMT
Here's Labour's John Woodcock summarising an exchange he had earlier.
Asked PM if G20 signalled the UK's budget deficit would take even longer to clear. He just said figures "would be set out in the normal way"
- John Woodcock (@JWoodcockMP) November 17, 2014
block-time published-time 4.42pm GMT
Labour's Alison McGovern asks if Cameron will campaign for an international right to health coverage.
Cameron says she's right. This should be considered when the Millennium Development Goals are updated, he says.
block-time published-time 4.40pm GMT
Julian Lewis, a Conservative, asks Cameron for a commitment to keep defence spending above the Nato target (2% of national income) while he is in office.
Cameron says he has set out his plans for this parliament, and that he will set out his plans for the next one at the election.
block-time published-time 4.39pm GMT
Labour's Derek Twigg asks how having so many people on low-paid jobs addresses the productivity problem.
Cameron says a large number of jobs are being created and that it is a myth to say they are all low-paid ones.
block-time published-time 4.38pm GMT
Hugh Robertson, a Conservative, asks if Cameron discussed cutting funds to Islamic State from Arab countries.
Cameron says he discussed this issue with Barack Obama and Tony Abbott, the Australian prime minister.
block-time published-time 4.37pm GMT
Labour's Rushanara Ali asks about an initiative to cut remittance costs for people sending money back to developing countries.
Cameron says remittances are a critical source of income in these countries.
block-time published-time 4.35pm GMT
Sir Edward Leigh, a Conservative, suggests spending £650m from the aid budget on a climate change fund is not the best use of public money.
Cameron say breaking promises to the poorest in the world would not be the right thing to do.
block-time published-time 4.34pm GMT
The SNP's Angus Roberston invites Cameron to congratulate Nicola Sturgeon on becoming leader of the SNP.
Cameron says he is happy to congratulate her. At the G20 almost all leaders came up to say how pleased they were the UK was staying together.
block-time published-time 4.33pm GMT
Liam Fox, the Conservative former defence secretary, says it is the eurozone itself that poses a threat to the EU's recovery.
Cameron says the eurozone needs structural recovery. And Britain and America have shown an active monetary policy can make a difference. The European Central Bank should follow that course.
block-time published-time 4.32pm GMT
Labour's Keith Vaz asks if Cameron discussed trade in his meeting with the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi. And did he invite him to the UK?
Cameron says more can be done to promote trade with India. They discussed the need for the free trade talks with the EU to get going again.
block-time published-time 4.30pm GMT
Cameron says changes in the US Congress make an agreement on TTIP (the transatlantic trade and investment partnership) more likely. But supporters of TTIP must attack the myths about its impact on the NHS, he says.
block-time published-time 4.28pm GMT
Labour's Dennis Skinner accuses Cameron of "hypocrisy" because he is imposing sanctions on Russia, while helping Russians donate to the Conservative party.
Cameron says he does not know where to start. Skinner used to support the Communists, he says, but they don't run Russia any more.
block-time published-time 4.27pm GMT
Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the Conservative former foreign secretary, says further sanctions on Putin and his "cronies" will not have any effect.
Cameron says he disagrees. The value of the rouble has fallen, he says. Economic sanctions are having an effect.
block-time published-time 4.26pm GMT
Labour's Pat McFadden asks if Cameron regrets watering down Labour's anti-terror laws.
Cameron says the government took advice and took the right decisions.
block-time published-time 4.24pm GMT
Jack Straw, the Labour foreign secretary, asks about Luxembourg's "scandalous" record on tax avoidance when Jean-Claude Juncker was prime minister.
Cameron says Luxembourg has now signed up to action on tax avoidance.
block-time published-time 4.23pm GMT
Sir Peter Tapsell, a Conservative, asks if Russia would take more notice if Britain were re-arming.
Cameron says Britain is investing in arms. But what Putin really notices is a united opposition.
block-time published-time 4.21pm GMT
Cameron is responding to Miliband.
He says all EU leaders who met Putin gave him a clear message.
Further destabilisation would trigger more sanctions, he says.
On taxation, Cameron says what is crucial is that tax jurisdictions have agreed to share information.
On climate change, Cameron says Britain has already made money available.
The biggest breakthrough is that China and America came to an agreement on targets at the Asian summit.
On growth, Cameron says he is happy to defend and take some credit for what is happening in the UK: growth at 3pc, the biggest fall in unemployment on record.
The difference is that, while there are problems in the world economy, now Britain is outperforming other countries.
Coming back to the UK, it is a pleasure to see some things have not changed: our language, the pleasures of our climate - and Miliband still in his place.
block-time published-time 4.18pm GMT
Ed Miliband is responding to Cameron.
He endorses Cameron's comments about the murder of Peter Kassig.
On Russia, does Cameron think enough is being done to get Russia out of Ukraine? And what has to happen for further sanctions to be applied?
On corporate taxation, will developing countries be given a role in forming the new rules? This was promised, but has not happened. Why not?
When will the UK announce our contribution to the climate fund?
On Ebola, Miliband welcomes the UK's role as the second largest donor. But the G20 conclusions were short on commitments from other countries. What can be done to get them to contribute more?
On growth, Cameron says there are red lights flashing in the global economy.
I think that is what is known as getting your excuses in early.
Cameron used to say problems with the economy were all to do with UK decisions, not global ones. Now he is saying it's all to do with global factors.
Ed Miliband Photograph: BBC Parliament
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.25pm GMT
block-time published-time 4.13pm GMT
Cameron says the G20 plan is plan for jobs and growth. It is intended to boost the global economy by $2 trillion.
The warning signs in the global economy show it is more important than ever to stick to the government's long-term economic plan, he says.
He says his focus at the summit was helping to deliver global growth by tackling the threats to it.
On free trade, he pushed for the EU/US trade deal to be completed next year. And he pushed for the EU to do other trade deals, including with Australia.
On global taxation, he says there was progress on ensuring big companies pay the taxes they owe. This is a moral issue, as well as an economic one. Cameron says he put this on the G20 agenda at the summit in Northern Ireland. It is not embedded in the G20 agenda.
On the threat posed by conflict and disease, Cameron says he called on Russia to respect the Minsk agreements. And he said Britain was prepared to tighten sanctions. President Putin said he did not want a frozen conflict, and he said he saw Ukraine as a single political space. But he must be judged by his deeds, not his words.
On Ebola, Cameron said he wrote to the Australian prime minister before the summit asking for this to be included. He pushed for global measures to tackle a similar outbreak in future, such as having a standing pool of medics, and more action on fighting bacteria.
This was a good G20 for Britain, he says.
David Cameron Photograph: BBC Parliament
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.24pm GMT
block-time published-time 4.07pm GMT
David Cameron's statement
David Cameron starts by condemning the murder of the US aid worker, Peter Kassig.
He says tackling the threat posed by terror formed part of his conversations with the Australian prime minister. He has announced powers to stop extremists returning to the UK. A full statement about the counter-terrorism bill will be made soon.
block-time published-time 4.03pm GMT
Apparently David Cameron only got back from the G20 summit at lunchtime. And his body clock will be telling him it's the middle of the night. He might not be in a very good mood...
block-time published-time 4.00pm GMT
Lord Ashcroft's weekly poll is out. Here are the figures.
Ashcroft National Poll, 14-16 November: CON 29%, LAB 30%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 16%, GRN 7%. Full details on @ConHome, 4pm.
- Lord Ashcroft (@LordAshcroft) November 17, 2014
Voting intention with changes in this week's ANP: pic.twitter.com/3CehlaCbmy
- Lord Ashcroft (@LordAshcroft) November 17, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.04pm GMT
block-time published-time 3.54pm GMT
Labour's Michael McCann isn't impressed by Cameron's latest argument about the state of the global economy.
Extraordinary that the 2008 global crash was Labour's fault while this isn't the Tories responsibility. http://t.co/FErFSLjWVf
- Michael McCann MP (@MichaelMcCannMP) November 17, 2014
block-time published-time 3.52pm GMT
My statement on #G20 and why warning signs in the global economy mean we must stick to the long term economic plan at 4pm in the Commons.
- David Cameron (@David_Cameron) November 17, 2014
block-time published-time 3.28pm GMT
David Cameron will be making his Commons statement on the G20 summit in about half an hour. It would normally start at 3.30pm, but there is an urgent question about the army reserves first.
For some background, here's a piece from Guardian Australia's Van Badham on 10 things we learnt from the G20.
block-time published-time 2.31pm GMT
Here's a short afternoon reading list.
Nick Robinson on his blog says Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury, told the cabinet last week that there may have to be cuts in the autumn statement.
Philip Cowley at the Conversation looks at how the Conservatives are trying to win in Rochester with a leaflet highlighting their candidate's local credentials, while describing Mark Reckless as someone who studied politics at Oxford and then worked as a political researcher.
Tory leaflet in Rochester Photograph: Conservatives
And Jackie South at All That's Left writes about the same leaflet.
The idea that voting Conservative is a blow against career politicians without local connections is openly risible. To put it on your leaflets is an act of desperate prattishness.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 3.47pm GMT
block-time published-time 1.14pm GMT
Lunchtime summary
A "web of lies, deceit and indiscipline" by police officers led to former government chief whip Andrew Mitchell and his family being subjected to an extended and vitriolic press campaign, the High Court has heard. As the Press Association reports, James Price QC was opening Mitchell's libel action against News Group Newspapers (NGN) over a September 2012 story in The Sun which the MP says meant that he was guilty of launching a grossly offensive and arrogant attack at Downing Street police officers two days earlier, branding them "fucking plebs" and "morons". Mitchell sat in front of his counsel as he told Mr Justice Mitting, who is hearing the case in London without a jury, that what the MP was alleged to have said was a "gross caricature of an attitude of mind which has been out of date for decades". Price said that the detail of the encounter which was leaked to the newspaper by a number of officers was "wholly false".
This web of lies, deceit and indiscipline, and by police officers, led to Mr Mitchell and his family being subjected to an extremely unpleasant, indeed vitriolic, press campaign and a good deal of hostility from the public who believed what they had read in the press. It also placed him in a position where he required considerable determination and, above all, confidence in the rightness of his position, to stand by his account of events.
NGN argues that the article was substantially true and, at the heart of its case, is the account given by Pc Toby Rowland. He claims that Mitchell, having demanded but been denied the right to leave on his bicycle by the main Downing Street gates, lost his temper and said: "Best you learn your fucking place - you don't run this fucking government - you're fucking plebs."
In his witness statement to the court, Mitchell said:
I admit to sometimes using bad language in conversation. I also admit that I can sometimes be impatient and short-tempered when I consider I am being prevented from going about my legitimate business. I even admit that I can be - or at least that I can appear to be - rude on these occasions. To the best of my recollection, I have never called anybody a 'pleb', however, let alone a policeman. Since the incident I have thought long and hard about this and cannot recall a single instance when I have called anybody a 'pleb'. It just isn't a word I use.
For detailed reporting from the trial, @DannyShawBBC, @JoshuaRozenberg and @TimesCrime are all worth following.
Downing Street has said David Cameron will convene a meeting of the government's Cobra contingency committee to consult with security chiefs and other senior officials following the Islamic State beheading of US hostage Peter Kassig.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.39pm GMT
block-time published-time 1.00pm GMT
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has published a short note today saying that the amount the government is saving from changes to benefits and tax credits is much lower than expected. Amongst other reasons, this is partly because of higher spending on pensioners, and partly because anticipated savings from cuts to tax credits, housing benefit and disability living allowance have not materialised.
block-time published-time 12.49pm GMT
George Osborne, the chancellor, has used an interview with BBC News to back David Cameron's comments, in a Guardian article, about the "red warning lights" flashing on the dashboard of the global economy. Osborne said:
You have to make a realistic assesment of the global economy today. We've discovered that Japan has gone into recession, Europe remains vey weak, and although the British economy is perfoming well we're not immune to these things happening in the world. It's all the more reason why we've got to go on working through our long term economic plan and why it would be a complete disaster to divert from that plan, to borrow and spend more. That would put Britain in a place where many other countries find themselves today.
But Natalie Bennett, the Green party leader, has put out a statement saying the coalition is to blame for problems with the economy.
It is helpful that Mr Cameron has finally noticed the extreme fragility of the global economy, if only belatedly, but what's clear from his remarks is that he's trying to lay the blame for the failures of his own government in any place but the right one.
Voters will no doubt recall that this government came into office promising to 'rebalance' our economy, away from the financial sector and back towards manufacturing - a move that would have required substantial investment in the real economy, rather than cash flowing into financial and property speculation.
That has not happened; the UK's rate of investment is comparable to El Salvador's, and the financial sector has debts totalling 1,300% of GDP.
Furthermore, the government has utterly failed to rein in the excesses, the fraud, management and risk-taking of the bankers, as the massive fines for market rigging this week demonstrated
The Green party says this has to end. We need to slash the size of the financial sector and see that it serves the needs of a boosted real economy that manufactures the goods and grows the food that we need, providing jobs that workers can live on, and homes they can afford. That would also reduce our exposure to the international economic, political and military turbulence.
Natalie Bennett Photograph: Mark Kerrison/Mark Kerrison/Demotix/Corbis
block-time published-time 12.29pm GMT
Here's the Press Association on the security scare at Westminster this morning. (See 10.28am.)
A security alert which closed a key Parliamentary building was sparked by suspicions over a tablet computer belonging to a minister's aide.
Portcullis House - which contains MPs' offices and committee rooms - was evacuated and sealed off while police examined the device.
Tory MP Nick Boles took to Twitter to reveal that the false alarm erupted around his newly-recruited apprentice.
"An exciting start to my apprentice's first day at Parliament: the whole of Portcullis House evacuated cos of security scare over his iPad!" the Skills Minster posted.
His office said he was not providing any more details of the incident - which saw a number of high-profile figures locked out of meetings.
Scotland Yard confirmed that an item found in the airport security-style entrance area of the building opposite the Palace of Westminster was investigated and found not to be suspicious.
And here's the tweet from Nick Boles, the minister for skills.
An exciting start to my apprentice's first day at Parliament: the whole of Portcullis House evacuated cos of security scare over his iPad!
- Nick Boles (@NickBolesMP) November 17, 2014
block-time published-time 12.06pm GMT
A Rochester byelection round-up
Here is a Rochester byelection round-up.
Matthew Goodwin in the Telegraph says Ukip has professionalised its campaigning operation.
It started in Clacton. That by-election was significant not only because it launched Ukip into Westminster, but also because it taught the party how to campaign. Clacton was the first electoral battle in which Ukip waged a modern, professional and intensive effort. It was the first time that Ukip experimented with a "voter identification system" - a database of information on each voter - and therefore the first time that the party approached different areas with different messages.
Thus Labour voters heard about opposition to the "bedroom tax" and the need to punish bankers; Tory voters heard about the need for more GPs. It was also the first time that younger Ukippers became seriously involved, learning the importance of more targeted, subtle and nuanced messages before their own campaigns next May along the East Coast.
Ironically, this change was not the product of diehard Ukippers but of two new recruits: the defector Douglas Carswell, who has long written about how to revitalise parties; and the experienced organiser Chris Bruni-Lowe, who used to run local referendums for MPs.
Their priority was to own the "local space" before other parties arrived. In Clacton, the frontline was not Europe or immigration. It was fixing street lights, finding more GPs, saving a maternity unit and curbing knife crime.
Precisely the same is now happening in Mark Reckless's seat of Rochester and Strood. The Tories have started too late and remain focused on a story about the national economic recovery, which even a quick look at the surveys would show is not being felt by most Ukip voters.
Kelly Tolhurst, the Conservative candidate, tells the Telegraph she has "never been a massive fan of politicians". She says:
I do believe that I am a normal person. The only candidate who is a true person of Rochester and Strood is me... I've not wanted to be an MP since I was nine. I'm not a career politician, I never set out to do this. But I really want to represent this area because I come from here, I know the people and I think I can do a good job.
Roger Helmer, the Ukip MEP, says the party will benefit in the byelection from the government's decision to pledge hundreds of millions of pounds to a new Green Climate Fund in Berlin on the same day as the poll.
Cameron to announce £600 million foreign aid "to fight climate change". How many votes will that be worth in Rochester?
- Roger Helmer (@RogerHelmerMEP) November 17, 2014
Mike Smithson says people who have made a forecast of the byelection result on his Political Betting website expect Ukip to win by an average margin of 8.88 percentage points.
Final consensus in the PB Rochester by-election prediction competition is that UKIP will win with margin of 8.88% pic.twitter.com/tshw0uCzEE
- Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 11.37am GMT
David Cameron is going to host a Cobra meeting on the latest Islamic State beheading, Downing Street announced at the Number 10 lobby briefing.
Prime Minister to chair Cobra meeting on the latest Isis beheading video when he returns from the G20 http://t.co/61BgDR2ZGR
- ITV News (@itvnews) November 17, 2014
There is also going to be a statement in the Commons from Cameron on the G20 summit at 3.30pm this afternoon.
block-time published-time 11.13am GMT
The plebgate libel trial has got underway.
I won't be providing minute-by-minute coverage here, but the BBC's Danny Shaw seems to be providing good rolling coverage here on Twitter. Here are his opening posts.
Main issue for libel case is whether Andrew Mitchell did swear at police & describe them as "plebs". Mr Justice Mitting presiding. #plebgate
- Danny Shaw (@DannyShawBBC) November 17, 2014
#plebgate James Price QC tells court Andrew Mitchell is "innocent man" as he outlines his case at start of libel action
- Danny Shaw (@DannyShawBBC) November 17, 2014
#plebgate Price says police responsible for a "web of lies, deceit & indiscipline" which led to "vitriolic" press campaign against Mitchell
- Danny Shaw (@DannyShawBBC) November 17, 2014
#plebgate Price: Andrew Mitchell is "not a snob, he is a good man". The word "pleb" is "not in his vocabulary..it's the very opposite of...
- Danny Shaw (@DannyShawBBC) November 17, 2014
#plebgate Desmond Browne QC for Toby Rowland says Mitchell was a "Jekyll & Hyde" character - a "mix of charm & menace"
- Danny Shaw (@DannyShawBBC) November 17, 2014
#plebgate Browne says Mitchell has "foul temper" & uses "foul language"
- Danny Shaw (@DannyShawBBC) November 17, 2014
#plebgate Browne says Mitchell told security officer in another encounter he was "a little s***"
- Danny Shaw (@DannyShawBBC) November 17, 2014
#plebgate Browne says Mitchell put another officer down saying "that's a bit above your pay grade Mr Plod"
- Danny Shaw (@DannyShawBBC) November 17, 2014
block-time published-time 11.03am GMT
Rochester byelection hustings - Summary and verdict
Who's winning in Rochester and Strood? Having listening to this morning's hustings, I'm tempted to conclude that the answer is - Sir John Major. I spent a day in the constituency three and half weeks ago - you can read about it here - and I was told explicitly by Ukip that they were putting immigration at the heart of their campaign. They showed me this, which they described as their main campaign leaflet.
Ukip election leaflet in Rochester pic.twitter.com/EeHeXUqwLW
- AndrewSparrow (@AndrewSparrow) November 17, 2014
Yet today a different story emerged. This is the key news line from this morning's hustings.
Mark Reckless, the Ukip candidate, has downplayed the importance of immigration as a key campaign issue. Asked at the start of the BBC Radio Kent hustings to summarise in 60 seconds why he should be MP, he did not mention immigration and instead said he was focusing on health.
First and foremost, because I'm putting backing Medway's NHS at the centre of my campaign. My father's a doctor, my mother was a nurse and I'm extremely concerned that under both of the parties we've seen problems at Medway hospital being allowed to fester for at least a decade now. Kelly Tolhurst, the Conservative candidate and Reckless's main rival, also highlighted the state of the local hospital as her main issue.
Why could this mark a result for Major? Because, within the last week, he has twice spoken out on this subject in ways that seem designed to shame Ukip over its anti-immigration stance. Last week he spoke about his "huge admiration" for immigrants, and yesterday he described Ukip as a party of "negativity and sheer nastiness".
There could be an alternative theory. In an interview with BBC Radio Kent after the hustings, Tim Bale, an academic, said Ukip could be focusing on health because they "own" immigration as an issue anyway. Perhaps. But if you "own" an issue and you think it's winning you votes, it is customary to keep banging on about it.
As for the rest of the hustings, here's my verdict on how the candidates performed.
Mark Reckless: He easily comes over as the most professional candidate (as you would expect from someone who's been the local MP for more than four years) and he comfortably trumped Tolhurst at several points on local detail. But he was given an easy ride. His Lodge Hill flip-flop was only addressed fleetingly at the end (see 10am), and sadly he was not challenged on why a man now fighting a byelection on his commitment to the NHS defected to a party run by a man who two years ago wanted to dismantle it.
Kelly Tolhurst : Rather poor. Having impeccable local credentials is a strength, but she is weak on policy, having little to say when pressed on what she wanted David Cameron to do about immigration (see 9.33am) and, given what the presenter was revealing about the state of Medway schools, she is probably lucky that this has not been a bigger issue in the campaign in the light of her role as cabinet member on the council in charge of education.
Naushabah Khan: She was good. I probably wouldn't go as far as Rod Liddle, who described her as "best, by a million miles" after another hustings, but she was articulate, and had a good grasp of the issues.
Geoff Juby: For understandable reasons, he sounded as if his heart wasn't really in it . (The latest Ashcroft poll puts the Lib Dems on 2% in this fight.)
Clive Gregory: He sounded refreshingly different. Listening to him made me think that Natalie Bennett could do well if she gets included in a UK televised leaders' debate, not so much because the country would endorse every Green policy, but because there is an appetite for an alternative to what the main parties are offering, and the Greens could fill it.
block-time published-time 10.30am GMT
That didn't last long.
Security Alert is over at Portcullis House. Roads and building reopened.
- Darren McCaffrey (@DMcCaffreySKY) November 17, 2014
block-time published-time 10.28am GMT
There is a security alert at Parliament. Portcullis House, the building opposite the main Houses of Parliament where many MPs have offices, has been partly evacuated because of a suspect package.
Westminster cleared of people and traffic after major security scare around Parliament pic.twitter.com/Ym5pNIHiSW
- Jordan Newell (@jordannewell) November 17, 2014
suspect package at portcullis house - Waterloo bridge shut - though policeman tells me it should be sorted soon pic.twitter.com/sxbxFesBFd
- Beth Rigby (@BethRigby) November 17, 2014
block-time published-time 10.00am GMT
Q: Why is there not central fund to help countries accept migrants?
Gregory says that would be a good idea.
Q: Why are disability issues not featuring in the campaign?
Juby says he has only been approached by one disability group?
Q: Ukip have no credibility. They flip-flop. When you were a Conservative MP, you defended the plan for the Lodge Hill development. Now you are against it?
Reckless says that, since he made those comments, it has been designated a site of special scientific interest. If it were allowed to go ahead, the whole system of environmental protection would fall apart. One of his reasons for holding the byelection was to campaign against this, he says.
Khan says she is in favour of Lodge Hill. Extra homes are needed. Both Reckless and Tolhurst have changed their mind on this, she says.
Tolhurst says that's not true. She has never voted against it, she says.
And that's it.
I'll post a summary soon.
block-time published-time 9.56am GMT
Tolhurst says Reckless claims he secured the funding for Stood academy. But that happened before he became MP.
And she says Reckless talked about two primaries closing. That was Labour policy, she says.
Reckless disputes that. He says it was a decision taken by the council.
block-time published-time 9.54am GMT
Juby says Labour created the academies.
Khan says people do not understand that there is a difference between Labour and coalition academies. Under Labour, academy status was used to improve failing schools. Under the coalition, the best schools have been encouraged to become academies.
block-time published-time 9.52am GMT
Gregory say the whole system is a problem. There is too much focus on league tables. Teachers should be allowed to teach.
Q: That's Michael Gove's fault, isn't it?
Reckless says Gove was right to place an emphasis on standards.
Reckless says there has not been enough urgency at the council.
He has a one-year-old child, and two-and-a-half-year-old. There is a good local primary near him. But he is just outside the catchment areas.
He says Tolhurst is responsible for local schools being poor.
Tolhurst says she has been working hard to improve schools. She has set up a system where schools have to come in an explain their Ofsted performance.
We are seeing improvements, she says.
But these things do not change overnight.
block-time published-time 9.49am GMT
Q: [To Khan] What would you do about local schools?
Khan says she went to local schools, and she is a school governor.
Q: You're governor of a secondary school. Do you have a problem with the quality of children coming through?
No, says Khan. But it's a selective school.
Tolhurst says that Khan is contradicting herself, saying standards generally are poor, but not at the intake for her school.
Khan does not accept that. (Julia George, the presenter, says it's a selective school.)
block-time published-time 9.45am GMT
Q: [To Tolhurst] You have been the cabinet member for schools on Medway council.
For 18 months, says Tolhurst.
Q: School performance has been catastrophically bad. It is near the bottom of the table nationally on various educational measures. You say you will give parents a choice of outstanding schools. But there aren't any here.
Tolhurst says she has been addressing these problems.
Key stage two results have improved, she says. For the first time in many years schools in Rochester and Strood are going to achieve 100% at key stage two.
Q: Most of these schools are going to be given to other schools to look after because Medway council has done so badly.
Tolhurst says, since she has had this portfolio, there have been improvements.
Partnership working is important, she says. The council has encouraged that.
block-time published-time 9.39am GMT
Juby says there is one school in the Medway were pupils speak more than 100 languages. Immigration puts pressure on services. But he concedes he does not have all the answers.
block-time published-time 9.38am GMT
Reckless says Tolhurst wants to limit the number of immigrants coming from the EU. But you cannot do this if you are in the EU. So, Kelly, will you join me in campaigning to leave the EU.
Tolhurst says Cameron wants to limit the numbers coming in.
Khan says, when Cameron made his Bloomberg speech on the EU last year, he did not even mention immigration.
Tolhurst says Cameron has a record of delivering, on issues like the EU budget. She will keep pushing him on immigration until he delivers.
It's "words not action," says Reckless.
Juby says immigration is good for this country. And limits would be dangerous. There are around 200,000 Spanish people in the UK, but more than one million Britons in Spain.
block-time published-time 9.35am GMT
Q: [To Gregory] You would let anyone in?
No, says Gregory. But what goes around comes around. There are Britons working abroad as a result of the EU.
block-time published-time 9.34am GMT
Khan says immigrants are contributing a great deal to the economy.
And the EU is bringing inward investment to the area.
Q: What is your real position? You speak about its benefits. But you seem to have been nobbled by Labour, and talk about the problems too.
Khan says she does not accept that. The last Labour government made mistakes.
block-time published-time 9.33am GMT
Q: [To Tolhurst] Has someone told you not to mention it?
Tolhurst says immigration has benefits. But it is having a big impact locally. We need to take measures to reduce it.
Q: What are you urging Cameron to do?
Tolhurst says she wants him to fight, and have a renegotiation with Europe.
People coming to this country should work and contribute. It should not be open to immigrants who are not working, she says.
Q: But that's happening?
There is more we could do, Tolhurst says.
Q: But what about people coming here to work? What do you want him to do?
Tolhurst says she would like Cameron to control the numbers.
Q: How?
By having some agreement?
Q: Permanently? Or temporarily, as John Major suggested.
For a short period of time, says Tolhurst.
block-time published-time 9.30am GMT
Q: In other debates immigration has come up a lot. Has anyone told you not to mention it?
Reckless says people know Ukip has a fair policy on immigration, with an Australian-style points system.
Q: Do you think this is not a vote winner?
Reckless says it is a huge issue. It gets raised a lot on the doorstep.
Q: You did not mention it in your opening remarks.
Reckless says he thought it would come up.
block-time published-time 9.28am GMT
Q: What would you do to improve health?
Tolhurst says Medway hospital being in special measures in unacceptable. She has a personal interest; the hospital save her life last year.
She has talked about this with Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, who was down here last week. She would like to pair the Medway hospital up with an outstanding hospital, possibly a London one, to drive it out of special measures.
Reckless says the hospital has already paired up with the Homerton hospital to improve A&E.
Tolhurst says a general pairing would be good.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.07am GMT
block-time published-time 9.26am GMT
Julia Smith says there used to be two mental health wards in the local hospital. Now there is just two thirds of one.
Q: Does that concern you?
Juby says this concerns him very much. This is a national problem. The Mental Health Trust is not getting the money it needs.
Q: Is this because mental health does not get parity with physical health?
Juby says the problem is we say we want to treat people in the community, but do not give them proper back-up.
Q: What about people who need a hospital bed?
Juby says he agrees; there need to be more beds.
Q: Would you fight for more mental health beds?
Juby says in Medway the Lib Dems have been fighting for more beds. And this is a Lib Dem priority nationally too.
block-time published-time 9.19am GMT
Q: What would the Green party do on mental health?
Gregory says Reckless is right to say there is no proper management. You need a full-time CEO in charge.
The NHS will get worse if TTIP comes in, he says. We must stop that, or we will lose the NHS completely. The NHS has to be taken out of TTIP. And the Health Act must be repealed.
Q: But what would you do in the constituency?
Gregory says the management is the main issue.
block-time published-time 9.17am GMT
Julia George says it is interesting how much emphasis they are putting on health. At the start of the campaign immigration was more of an issue.
Q: What could you do to improve the hospital?
Khan says she would vote for the bill that stops the privatisation of the health service.
Q: It's not just the hospital, is it? Labour say they would allow people to see a GP within 48 hours. But Labour raised GP salaries, while allowing GPs to opt out of night calls.
Khan says when Labour was in power you could see a GP within 48 hours. You cannot now. Labour would hire another 8,000 GPs. It would fund that through a Time to Care fund, raising money from a levy on tobacco firms and a mansion tax.
Q: [To Reckless] Did you take your eye off the ball on Medway Maritime hospital?
Reckless says there is an alphabet soup of regulators. Ukip would have a single elected health board looking after Medway. That would unify management and oversight.
Q: What have you failed to do?
Reckless said that, when the Medway hospital went into special measures, he complained that no one was in overall charge.
The existing management team was left in place, with no support.
Q: What did you do when a chairman was brought in on a part-time basis on a huge salary?
Reckless says he said that was unacceptable.
Q: Do you ever ask your family about this?
Reckless says he talks to his family a lot about this. His brother is a doctor and medical director.
block-time published-time 9.11am GMT
George is asking each candidate to give a one minute reason why they should be the MP.
Labour's Naushabah Khan says, as someone born in the constituency, she knows they can get things right. But there are issues to address, like the local hospital.
Clive Gregory, the Green candidate, says he has live on the Hoo peninsula for more than 20 years. He is absolutely opposed to the Lodge Hill development. And the Greens have the right stance on other issues too.
Ukip's Mark Reckless says he is putting the Medway hospital at the heart of his campaign. His father was a doctor, his mother was a nurse. He wants a unitary health authority for the area.
The Lib Dems' Geoff Juby says he has lived in Medway for 30 years. He would fight for better health services and better transport.
Kelly Tolhurst, the Conservative, says she is the true local candidate. She was born here, went to school here and runs a business here. She wants to bring the hospital out of special measures. It's a two-horse race. If you don't want a Ukip MP, vote for me, she says.
block-time published-time 9.06am GMT
Julia George is presenting the show. It will last for an hour.
She will be asking questions, but also taking questions.
You can email her at julia@bbc.co.uk
block-time published-time 9.00am GMT
You can follow the hustings live on BBC Radio Kent here.
block-time published-time 8.59am GMT
Rochester byelection hustings on BBC Radio Kent
There are 13 candidates in the Rochester and Strood byelection. The full list is here.
The five main ones are taking part in the hustings. They are:
Clive Gregory - Green party
Geoff Juby - Lib Dems
Naushabah Khan - Labour
Mark Reckless - Ukip
Kelly Tolhurst - Conservative
block-time published-time 8.55am GMT
There are three more days of campaigning befoe the Rochester and Strood byelection and this morning the five main candidates are taking part in a hustings being broadcast on BBC Radio Kent. Mark Reckless, the Ukip candidate who triggered the byelection by leaving the Conservatives and resigning as the constitutency's MP, has been criticised for missing some of the other hustings, but he is taking part today.
Just off to Chatham studio to go on @BBCRADIOKENT for my third debate with other candidates from 9-10am
- Mark Reckless (@MarkReckless) November 17, 2014
I'll cover the whole event live.
Here's the agenda for the day.
9am: BBC Radio Kent Rochester byelection hustings.
10.30am: The libel cases involving Andrew Mitchell, the former Conservative chief whip, and PC Toby Rowland starts at the Royal Courts of Justice. The cases revolve around whether Mitchell did or did not call the police plebs.
11am: Number 10 lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Theresa May, the home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
3pm: Sir David Higgins, HS2 chairman, gives evidence to the Commons transport committee.
As usual, I will be also covering all the breaking political news from Westminster, as well as bringing you the most interesting political comment and analysis from the web and from Twitter. I will post a summary at lunchtime, but I will be wrapping up after that because I've got a meeting this afternoon.
If you want to follow me on Twitter, I'm on @AndrewSparrow.
LOAD-DATE: November 18, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
262 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 18, 2014 Tuesday 5:01 AM GMT
Revealed: Keystone company's PR blitz to safeguard its backup plan;
Energy East strategy drawn up by public relations firm Edelman calls for thousands of activists, major online campaign and digging into background of opposition groups as methods TransCanada Corporation should use to 'play offence' against its detractors
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1694 words
The company behind the Keystone XL project is engaged in a "perpetual campaign" that would involve putting "intelligent" pressure on opponents and mobilising public support for an entirely Canadian alternative, bypassing Barack Obama and pipeline opposition in the US.
Hours before a Senate vote to force US approval of the Keystone pipeline, the industry playbook to squash opposition to the alternative has been exposed in documents made available to the Guardian.
Strategy documents drafted by the public relations giant Edelman for TransCanada Corporation - which is behind both Keystone and the proposed alternative - offer a rare inside glimpse of the extensive public relations, lobbying, and online and on-the-ground efforts undertaken for pipeline projects. The plans call, among other things, for mobilising 35,000 supporters.
The documents were prepared for Energy East, a project designed to serve as an entirely Canadian alternative to Keystone that is the biggest tar sands pipeline proposed to date.
TransCanada confirmed it was working with Edelman on the campaign and had already put in place the advertising, online hub and mass mobilisation efforts. The pipeline company said it did not work with Edelman on Keystone.
Edelman's response was brief. "We do not talk about the work we do for clients," a spokesman wrote in an email.
The Keystone battle comes to a head on Tuesday when Senators will directly challenge Obama and hold a vote to approve the pipeline project.
TransCanada, frustrated by the controversy over Keystone, is already pushing to convert and expand existing pipelines and construct an alternate 2,860-mile route across six provinces and four time zones to New Brunswick. The company sought approval for the project from the Canadian authorities last month.
The strategy for Energy East was dictated by the "new realities of designing, building and operating a major pipeline project in North America", the documents say.
"It is critical to play offence ... We are running a perpetual campaign," they say.
In the five strategy documents, made available to the Guardian by the campaign group Greenpeace, representatives from Edelman's offices in Calgary propose an exhaustive strategy to push through the Energy East project including mobilisation of third-party supporters and opposition research against pipeline opponents.
The documents contain only a fleeting reference to climate change - even though the world's top scientists have found that most of the world's fossil fuels must stay in the ground to avoid catastrophic global warming.
The battle plan drawn up by Edelman for Energy East calls for a budget for the recruitment of 35,000 activists in 2014 alone.
It also involves 40 paid Edelman staff working out of the public relations firm's offices in Washington DC.
Nine TransCanada employees will also work on the campaign, according to the documents.
The digital hub of the campaign, a microsite about Energy East, has already been launched.
Edelman says in the documents that the strategy was forged in the battles over Keystone XL and other US energy projects.
"In North America pipelines have become proxies for the broader, contentious debate around climate change and oil sands development," the documents say.
The Alberta tar sands are the world's third-largest known carbon store. The United Nations climate science panel, the IPCC, has said that most of the world's fossil fuels must stay in the ground to avoid catastrophic climate change.
Energy East is the longest pipeline proposed to date and also the highest capacity; if built it would pump up to 1.1m barrels a day.
In the wake of the Keystone XL opposition and a pipeline spill in 2010 in Kalamazoo, Michigan, oil industry projects now face "permanent, persuasive, nimble and well-funded opposition groups", in Edelman's words.
But the documents say the oil industry and public relations firms have developed an effective strategy to beat back those opponents through online organising.
Industry mobilised a million activists and generated more than 500,000 pro-Keystone comments during the public comment period, one of the documents says.
"It's not just associations or advocacy groups building these programs in support of the industry. Companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and Halliburton (and many more) have all made key investments in building permanent advocacy assets and programs to support their lobbying, outreach and policy efforts," the documents say. "TransCanada will be in good company."
"This approach strives to neutralize risk before it is leveled, respond directly to issues or attacks as they arise, and apply pressure - intelligently - on opponents, as appropriate," the documents say.
The documents say Edelman and TransCanada should "work with third parties to pressure Energy East opponents".
They advise : "Add layers of difficulty for our opponents, distracting them from their mission and causing them to redirect their resources," and warn: "We cannot allow our opponents to have a free pass. They will use every piece of information they can find to attack TransCanada and this project."
Recruiting allies to deliver the pro-pipeline message is critical, Edelman says in the documents. "Third-party voices must also be identified, recruited and heard to build an echo chamber of aligned voices."
Edelman also offers "detailed background research on key opposition groups" such as Council of Canadians, Equiterre, the David Suzuki Foundation, Avaaz and Ecology Ottawa.
The research would use public records, financial disclosures, legal databases and social media.
TransCanada said it had been working with Edelman for several months but had not adopted all of the recommendations in the documents. "We have moved forward with implementing certain components of the strategy," spokesman Shawn Howard said. "Those include our paid media campaigns in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, our online components with the launch of our energyeastpipeline.com microsite in French and English, and our advocacy program, which allows those who support the project an opportunity to speak out and share their personal stories."
Howard said TransCanada had recruited 2,500 supporters for its project in the last two weeks. He also defended the hardball approach to pipeline opponents.
"One of the lessons that we have learned on Keystone XL is the importance of holding opponents accountable for the claims they make. Just as our shareholders and the business community hold our organization accountable for our actions, we too feel a duty to ensure that well-organized global opponents are held to the standard of accountability and transparency," he wrote. "We will not apologize for promoting the value of the industry ... We are proud of this project."
The campaign group Avaaz, one of the potential targets of the opposition research, called on Edelman to sever its connections with the campaign.
"Edelman's cynical plan to smear citizens groups shows how low fossil fuel companies will stoop to protect their profits in the face of rising seas, melting ice caps and millions calling for climate action," Alex Wilks, a campaign director in New York, wrote in an email. "Edelman must cancel its TransCanada contract and stop promoting one of the world's dirtiest oil pipelines."
The Council of Canadians, another targeted group, said the ambitious scale of the PR pitch suggested TransCanada was concerned about growing opposition to the project. "What this speaks to is that they are losing," said Andrea Harden-Donaghue, climate campaigner for the council. "What these documents reveal is that they are bringing Tea Party activists into the equation in Canada combined with a heavyhanded advertising campaign. They are clearly spending a lot of time and thought on our efforts. I'd rather see them address the concerns that we are raising."
Edelman, the world's biggest privately held PR firm, has previously been drawn into controversies about its position on climate change. It declared on 7 August that it would no longer take on campaigns that deny global warming.
The declaration followed those by other top PR companies in response to a report in the Guardian.
However, Edelman pointedly did not rule out campaigns opposing environmental regulations or promoting the fossil fuel industry.
Greenpeace said the precise scope and scale of the work TransCanada has contracted with Edelman is unknown, although the campaign group noted that TransCanada has recently launched the advocacy micro-site described in these documents.
The development of an all-Canada alternative to the Keystone XL reflects growing industry frustration with the repeated delays of the US project.
TransCanada has been pushing to transport crude from Alberta to the refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast since 2008 - but has been blocked by legal challenges and grassroots opposition from Nebraska landowners and environmental activists who framed the project as a test of Obama's environmental credentials.
Obama has repeatedly put off a decision on the pipeline. But the day of reckoning is now fast approaching after the Republican takeover of the Senate in mid-term elections.
The House of Representatives voted on Friday to approve the pipeline. The Senate is just one vote shy of the 60 needed to cut off debate and vote on the pipeline.
Neither chamber is believed to have enough votes to override a presidential veto - and the White House has indicated Obama will use his veto to stop Congress forcing approval.
Unlike Keystone the route of the Energy East pipeline falls entirely within Canada's borders. But its purpose is similar: finding a route to get the vast carbon store of the Alberta tar sands to market.
In the case of Keystone XL, TransCanada is seeking to pump crude oil from the tar sands of Alberta to the Gulf Coast where it can be processed in the Texas refinery town of Port Arthur and exported through the Gulf of Mexico.
In the case of Energy East, TransCanada will convert and expand existing natural gas pipelines to deliver the oil to Saint John, New Brunswick, where there are refineries, and from where it can be shipped to supertankers in the Gulf of Mexico.
LOAD-DATE: November 18, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
263 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 18, 2014 Tuesday 2:32 AM GMT
Turbulent week for global climate policy leaves many questions;
What does a momentous week for global climate policy tell us about the future and Australia's place in it?
BYLINE: Graham Readfearn
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1717 words
They came, they saw, they cuddled koalas and world leaders then largely ignored the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott's instructions to ignore the global, intergenerational and morally challenging kerfuffle over climate change.
All in all the last seven days have proven to be momentous for climate change policy - both at the Brisbane G20 summit in Queensland and elsewhere.
Suspicions were confirmed, deals were announced and positions were galvanized, but there are still major questions as the world tries to find a safe route to a new global deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
I've been doing a bit of unpicking. Here are the threads.
Abbott coal's great defender
It's hard to think of a sterner test of Tony Abbott's resolve to be the coal industry's great international defender as that which he faced in Brisbane.
In the run up to the meeting, the world's two largest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions, the United States and China, announced what many described as a "historic" agreement to kerb emissions (more on this in a bit).
As the host of the G20, Australia had already faced concerted pressure both behind the scenes and in front of them to make climate change a more central part of the meeting's agenda.
When the US President Barack Obama finally arrived in Brisbane, he headed to the University of Queensland to deliver a speech where he called on other leaders to deliver a strong global agreement next year in Paris.
Obama also announced the US would be pledging $3billion to the Green Climate Fund as Japan announced it would give $1.5 billion. Even Abbott's staunch ally, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, says he'll probably commit cash. Abbott suggested he wouldn't bother.
How would Abbott react to what seemed like this climate change ambush on home turf? Would he tone down his rhetoric from "coal is good for humanity" to something more subtle?
Nah. He told G20 leaders that he was " standing up for coal ".
In a post-G20 press conference, Abbott's words were almost indistinguishable from the public relations campaigning of the world's coal industry. Abbott said:
A fifth of the globe don't have access to electricity. We've got to give them access to electricity and coal is going to be an important part of that for decades to come - coal is going to be an important part of that for decades to come.
Oh... while we're talking about that press conference, according to Abbott the US-China deal still means that "80 per cent of China's power needs in 2030 will be provided by coal".
Part of the pact between the US and China states the Asian superpower will look to source at least 20 per cent of its energy from non-fossil fuel sources by the year 2030.
But subtracting 20 from 100 doesn't leave you with coal. Anyone heard of this stuff called oil and gas?
Away from Abbott's one track mind on energy, analysts have been pointing out for months that China's coal use will likely peak in the next few years with some suggesting it has already topped out.
That US-China deal
China is the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases after overtaking the world's second largest emitter, the United States, about a decade ago.
One popular refrain for many years from developed countries during climate negotiations is that they won't be signing any new deal until China comes on board.
So when the US and China announced just days before the G20 summit that they had signed a deal on emissions, the news came with phrases like "historic" and "game changer".
This could be true, but there are still some pretty fundamental unknowns, especially when it comes China's emissions in the future.
While the US has set a firm-ish target, China has said only that it will peak its emissions at 2030 or earlier.
But how high will they go and how quickly and how far will they fall after 2030?
Given the scale of China's emissions (about 10 billion tonnes per year compared to the US at 5.2 billion tonnes) this is a key question.
This science paper in the journal Nature Geoscience suggests that in the six years from 2013 to 2019, the growth in China's emissions represents the equivalent of adding to the planet an economy half the size of the United States.
One detailed analysis in the New York Times suggests that a previous look at China's emissions shows the country was always going to hit peak emissions at about the 2030 mark - give or take five years either way.
The story also cites a study from researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology showing that under a scenario where China made "accelerated effort", its emissions do indeed peak in 2030, but by 2050 the levels had still not fallen back to where they are now.
Other analysis is more optimistic, suggesting that China could actually peak well before 2030 while sustaining economic growth.
That said, the sheer scale of China's renewables roll out is worth thinking about. A fact sheet issued by the White House explained:
China's target to expand total energy consumption coming from zero-emission sources to around 20 percent by 2030 is notable. It will require China to deploy an additional 800-1,000 gigawatts of nuclear, wind, solar and other zero emission generation capacity by 2030 - more than all the coal-fired power plants that exist in China today and close to total current electricity generation capacity in the United States.
One early analysis from Climate Action Tracker warns that China's pledge still takes the world "far above" a pathway that would give the world a decent chance of staying below 2C.
The analysis says China had already pledged a target of 15 per cent of energy coming from non-fossil energy sources by 2020. China's new target might actually "represent a slow down" in the speed of the country's move away from fossil fuel energy.
Still in coal business
Australia is the world's second largest exporter of coal (only a few tonnes behind Indonesia) with Queensland the biggest contributor to the country's status.
The state's Premier Campbell Newman is blunt. " We are in the coal business," he has said.
One of the world's biggest untapped fossil fuel regions is Queensland's Galilee Basin, where several mega-coal mine proposals are making their way through federal and state approvals.
The fact that coal miners want to ship this coal through the Great Barrier Reef is a bitter irony (or a continuing sick joke ) given that scientists and authorities say that climate change is the biggest threat to the reef's long-term future.
In November last year, the Queensland Government announced that "first movers" in the Galilee Basin would get a discount on any coal royalties they would pay to the state, as well as making environmental approvals easier.
Campaign groups have been putting concerted pressure on banks and anyone else that might consider loaning cash to help the projects to get off the ground.
Now, just a day after G20 leaders closed their summit meeting, the Queensland Government announced it is prepared to invest taxpayer money to help India-based coal miner Adani build a 190-kilometre railway line to move about 60 million tonnes of coal a year to the coast for export.
Exact amounts have not been disclosed, but some report the state's Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney as saying the dollar amounts will be in the "hundreds of millions". In a statement, Seeney said :
Our decision to help build the rail link for this project will get it happening more quickly and ensure its benefits start to flow to the people of Queensland. Today we have signed the first of these agreements with Adani, but the State is open to negotiating similar agreements with all proposed Galilee Basin miners.
But worry not. The day before announcing the deal to help finance what would be the biggest coal mining project in Australian history, Campbell Newman said his government was " really solid on reef protection ".
Are you reassured?
Cool Turkey
In the wake of the wrangling over the priorities of the G20, Turkey, the hosts for the next leaders meeting, has signalled it would take a far more holistic and collegiate approach to setting the agenda.
According to reports, this would include a more welcoming attitude to discussing climate change. The next G20 meeting will come just a couple of weeks before UN climate change negotiations take place in Paris in December 2015.
This is important because world leaders are supposed to sign the next major global deal to limit greenhouse gas emissions at that Paris meeting. If the deal negotiations lack momentum, then the G20 meeting could provide the required forum to boost hopes.
Next stop Lima
The next major deal to limit greenhouse gas emissions is scheduled to be signed at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 21 stConference of the Parties (COP21) meeting in Paris in December 2015.
But to avoid the crashing failures of past negotiations (remember Copenhagen), negotiators and the UN will want to see major progress on that deal's framework at COP20 in Lima, Peru, starting in two weeks time (I'll be there for most of the second week).
During the last major meeting in Warsaw, Australia emerged with a new reputation for slowing the process down and lacking ambition, which Australian negotiators rejected.
The G20 Communiqué pointed to COP21 and said the G20 would "encourage" nations to confirm their targets for cutting emissions before March next year.
The European Union has already said it will cut emissions by at least 40 per cent by 2030 but the deal is not considered to be watertight.
The US now has its target to cut emissions from where they were in 2005 by between 26 per cent and 28 per cent by 2025.
Pressure is now mounting on Australia to commit its targets to paper by March, although it could conceivably delay.
This is a major stumbling block for Australia.
Most analysts say the government's $2.5 billion Direct Action Policy will fall well short of the unconditional target of cutting emissions from their 2000 levels by five cent by the year 2020.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt insists the scheme will deliver. Tony Abbott has said if it doesn't he will not make any more money available.
But if Australia is to stand by its UN pledge to keep global warming below 2C then it will need to commit to targets soon.
But currently there is a large blank space where a credible climate policy should be.
LOAD-DATE: November 18, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
264 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 18, 2014 Tuesday 1:59 AM GMT
G20 and Beauty and the Geek do battle for best televised humiliation;
Reality TV has not hogged all the public shaming this past week. G20 served up news and nail-biting mortification in one go
BYLINE: Jazz Twemlow
SECTION: TELEVISION & RADIO
LENGTH: 645 words
Thank goodness TV execs keep finding new ways to humiliate people or there'd be nothing on the box. We'd have to consume a never-ending barrage of facts that served no other purpose than to expand our knowledge of the known universe, and where's the fun in that?
You can't set a black hole a meaninglessly degrading challenge. Unless that Philae probe hacks the comet's iCloud storage and publishes compromising nudie comet pics, few earthlings will turn their gaze from Colonoscopy Idol, or whatever else it is they're watching.
Proudly slinging humiliation garbage directly into our willing, open mouths is Beauty and the Geek (Channel 7), the show for anyone cursed with immortality who has watched everything else that exists, even all the videos on YouTube's vibrating buttock channel otherwise known as Vevo.
In Thursday's episode, the beauties are quizzed on their knowledge of popular animal idioms. Their reward for getting answers right? Having to eat the animal in question - or at least part of it. As they gulp down fish eyes, meal worms and a pig's ear, I wonder how exactly this is meant to encourage them to be nerdier or to study more, given that every time they use an idiom from now on, they'll have a vomit reflex.
But don't worry. To balance things out, one of the geeks is stripped naked and waxed. Well, not totally naked. Someone kindly drapes a token wisp of cloth over his geeky genitals with all the modesty-protecting effectiveness of a beer mat on a whale's groin. This human sacrifice is then put in an upright tent and sprayed with fake tan, a pointless addition as the makeover also involves a wardrobe reboot.
This Adonis emerges in appropriately fashionable attire, the onlookers blissfully unaware of the bronzed, hairless, Teflon-smooth human trapped underneath them. As if we didn't know already, the ritualistic nudity and Kardashian-beating close-ups of his arse crack were for our giggly titillation, nothing more.
Should you miss the next Beauty and the Geek episode, recreate the experience by cramming your penis into a pistachio shell and painting yourself orange. Ladies, nibble on some poached dogs' nostrils. Either way, make sure the majority of society is laughing at you.
From geeks to G20
Fortunately, the past week has not confined televisual humiliation to the kind of shows that make me pray Skynet sends a T-800 back to snuff out John Logie Baird. Coverage of the G20 in Brisbane has meant you can watch the news and get your fix of nail-biting public mortification all in one go.
Thanks to the Coalition's ideological fear of discussing climate change at the G20 (seriously, did Tony Abbott fall down a well while playing hide and seek as a kid before thousands of climate scientists flew into his face?), pretty much every foreign leader who's managed to learn a fact during their career has broadcast climate-conscious speeches that make Australia look like a freshly waxed geek sporting a shrink-wrapped crotch.
Somewhere along the line, there was a strange assumption that limiting mention of climate change to one small paragraph in a communique would control world leaders' brains. Unfortunately for Australia, Barack Obama proved document-based mind control is not possible and mentioned climate change anyway, as did David Cameron.
By the time Joe Hockey took to Insiders to reject, like an addict in denial, that global warming would impact the economy, G20 was on track to become a superpower intervention: "Look, Australia, we've been talking. We think you have a carbon problem." Now, there's a TV show I'd watch: Celebrity Carbon Rehab.
By the time Tony Abbott said he was "standing up for coal", I was happy the G20 doesn't run all year. You get the impression that if the Titanic were sinking and world leaders were arranging lifeboats, Tony Abbott would be the only one wanting to discuss damage to the iceberg.
LOAD-DATE: November 18, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
265 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 18, 2014 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
Coal Rush in India Could Tip Balance on Climate Change
BYLINE: By GARDINER HARRIS; Hari Kumar contributed reporting.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 4
LENGTH: 1292 words
DHANBAD, India -- Decades of strip mining have left this town in the heart of India's coal fields a fiery moonscape, with mountains of black slag, sulfurous air and sickened residents.
But rather than reclaim these hills or rethink their exploitation, the government is digging deeper in a coal rush that could push the world into irreversible climate change and make India's cities, already among the world's most polluted, even more unlivable, scientists say.
''If India goes deeper and deeper into coal, we're all doomed,'' said Veerabhadran Ramanathan, director of the Center for Atmospheric Sciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and one of the world's top climate scientists. ''And no place will suffer more than India.''
India's coal mining plans may represent the biggest obstacle to a global climate pact to be negotiated at a conference in Paris next year. While the United States and China announced a landmark agreement that includes new targets for carbon emissions, and Europe has pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent, India, the world's third-largest emitter, has shown no appetite for such a pledge.
''India's development imperatives cannot be sacrificed at the altar of potential climate changes many years in the future,'' India's power minister, Piyush Goyal, said at a recent conference in New Delhi in response to a question. ''The West will have to recognize we have the needs of the poor.''
Mr. Goyal has promised to double India's use of domestic coal from 565 million tons last year to more than a billion tons by 2019, and he is trying to sell coal-mining licenses as swiftly as possible after years of delay. The government has signaled that it may denationalize commercial coal mining to accelerate extraction.
''India is the biggest challenge in global climate negotiations, not China,'' said Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also vowed to build a vast array of solar power stations, and projects are already springing up in India's sun-scorched west.
But India's coal rush could push the world past the brink of irreversible climate change, with India among the worst affected, scientists say.
Indian cities are already the world's most polluted, with Delhi's air almost three times more toxic than Beijing's by one crucial measure. An estimated 37 million Indians could be displaced by rising seas by 2050, far more than in any other country. India's megacities are among the world's hottest, with springtime temperatures in Delhi reaching 120 degrees. Traffic, which will only increase with new mining activity, is already the world's most deadly. And half of Indians are farmers who rely on water from melting Himalayan glaciers and an increasingly fitful monsoons.
India's coal is mostly of poor quality with a high ash content that makes it roughly twice as polluting as coal from the West. And while China gets 90 percent of its coal from underground mines, 90 percent of India's coal is from strip mines, which are far more environmentally costly. In a country three times more densely populated than China, India's mines and power plants directly affect millions of residents. Mercury poisoning has cursed generations of villagers in places like Bagesati, in Uttar Pradesh, with contorted bodies, decaying teeth and mental disorders.
The city of Dhanbad resembles a postapocalyptic movie set, with villages surrounded by barren slag heaps half-obscured by acrid smoke spewing from a century-old fire slowly burning through buried coal seams. Mining and fire cause subsidence that swallows homes, with inhabitants' bodies sometimes never found.
Suffering widespread respiratory and skin disorders, residents accuse the government of allowing fires to burn and allowing pollution to poison them as a way of pushing people off land needed for India's coal rush.
''The government wants more coal, but they are throwing their own people away to get it,'' said Ashok Agarwal of the Save Jharia Coal Field Committee, a citizens' group.
T. K. Lahiry, chairman of Bharat Coking Coal, a government-owned company that controls much of the Jharia region, denied neglecting fires and pollution but readily agreed that tens of thousands of residents must be displaced for India to realize its coal needs. Evictions are done too slowly, he said.
''We need to shift these people to corporate villages far from the coal fields,'' Mr. Lahiry said during an interview in his large office.
With land scarce, Bharat Coking is digging deeper at mines it already controls. On a tour of one huge strip mine, officials said they had recently purchased two mammoth Russian mining shovels to more than triple annual production to 10 million tons. The shovels are clawing coal from a 420-foot-deep pit, with huge trucks piling slag in flat-topped mountains. The deeper the mine goes, the more polluting the coal produced.
India has the world's fifth-largest reserves of coal but little domestic oil or natural gas production. The country went on a coal-fired power plant building spree over the last five years, increasing capacity by 73 percent. But coal mining grew just 6 percent, leading to expensive coal imports, idle plants and widespread blackouts. Nearly 300 million Indians do not have access to electricity, and millions more get it only sporadically.
''India is going to use coal because that's what it has,'' said Chandra Bhushan, deputy director of the Delhi-based Center for Science and Environment, a prominent environmental group. ''Its strategy is 'all of the above,' just like in the U.S.''
Each Indian consumes on average 7 percent of the energy used by an American, and Indian officials dismiss critics from wealthy countries.
''I don't want to use the word 'pontificate' when talking about these people, but it would be reasonable to expect more fairness in the discussion and a recognition of India's need to reach the development of the West,'' Mr. Goyal said with a tight smile.
One reason for the widespread domestic support for India's coal rush is the lack of awareness of just how bad the air has already become, scientists say. Smog levels that would lead to highway shutdowns and near-panic in Beijing go largely unnoticed in Delhi. Pediatric respiratory clinics are overrun, but parents largely shrug when asked about the cause of their children's suffering. Face masks and air purifiers, ubiquitous among China's elite, are rare here. And there are signs Indian air is rapidly worsening.
''People need to wake up to just how awful the air already is,'' said Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's leading intergovernmental organization for the assessment of climate change.
India's great hope to save both itself and the world from possible environmental dystopia can be found in the scrub grass outside the village of Neemuch, in India's western state of Madhya Pradesh. Welspun Energy has constructed what for the moment is Asia's largest solar plant, a $148 million silent farm of photovoltaic panels on 800 acres of barren soil.
Welspun harvests some of the most focused solar radiation in the world. Dust is so intense that workers must wash each panel every two weeks.
Under Mr. Modi, India is expected to soon underwrite a vast solar building program, and Welspun alone has plans to produce within two years more than 10 times the renewable energy it gets from its facility in Neemuch.
The benefits of solar and the environmental costs of coal are so profound that India has no other choice but to rely more on renewables, said Dr. Pachauri.
''India cannot go down China's pathway, because the consequences for the public welfare are too horrendous,'' he said.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/world/coal-rush-in-india-could-tip-balance-on-climate-change.html
LOAD-DATE: November 18, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Hauling coal by bicycle in Jharkhand in eastern India. The country plans to double its use of domestic coal by 2019 as part of efforts to reduce poverty. (PHOTOGRAPH BY KUNI TAKAHASHI FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES) MAP: More people are vulnerable to rising sea levels in India than in any other country. (A8)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
266 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 17, 2014 Monday 9:30 PM GMT
Weatherwatch: Floods of denial
BYLINE: Paul Brown
SECTION: NEWS
LENGTH: 251 words
The waves of rainfall mostly across the western side of the British Isles last week raised the possibility of further serious flooding this winter.
At this stage nobody is sure what will happen. Will the jet stream get stuck again and lines of storms strike Britain, or will a normal pattern of warm and wet periods alternate with cold and dry?
For those who have suffered flooding and fear it happening again, this is a troubling time. Many of the communities involved have got together this summer with various emergency services to make themselves better prepared and more resilient.
At the same time, some of the people involved have been having discussions about their floods and the science of climate change. The Climate Outreach organisation says this is a fascinating topic of research because some people still regard this as "a difficult area to discuss" with their neighbours.
While some were aware of the link between their floods and climate change, others still felt they did not know enough about the subject - even though the science has been clear for two decades. A small minority regard climate change as a political issue and refuse to countenance any connection with local flooding. It is hard to think of any other subject where the scientific consensus can be simply rejected.
It could account for why, even in areas that have been flooded, wind and solar farms are still vehemently opposed, when opinion polls consistently show an increasing majority is in favour of these developments.
LOAD-DATE: November 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
267 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 17, 2014 Monday 6:19 PM GMT
David Cameron's Commons statement on the G20 summit: Politics Live blog;
Rolling coverage of all the day's political developments as they happen, including this morning's Rochester byelection hustings on BBC Radio Kent and David Cameron's statement on the G20 summit.Rochester byelection hustings - Summary and verdictLunchtime summaryAfternoon summary, including highlights from Cameron's statement
BYLINE: Andrew Sparrow
SECTION: POLITICS
LENGTH: 8241 words
block-time published-time 6.05pm GMT
Afternoon summary
Ed Miliband has accused David Cameron getting his "excuses in early" and blaming global factors for the failure of the government's economic strategy. Speaking in the House of Commons, Miliband said that Cameron tried to say that Labour was to blame for all the economic problems before 2010, but was now saying global factors were to blame for the problems currently facing the problems. Cameron, who was in the Commons for a statement on the G20, rejected this. You can read the full exchanges at 5.07pm.
Cameron has refused to comment on suggestions that the government deficit-reduction programme is falling further behind schedule. When Labour's John Woodcock put this idea to Cameron, he just said that the government had cut the defici by a third and that the latest figures would be announced, as usual, in the autumn statement.
Cameron has urged MPs to quash some of the "wholly false arguments" being made about the impact of the EU/US free trade deal, the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP) on the NHS. Campaigners claim that it will lead to American firms having the right to take over legal services. Cameron said that Karel de Gucht, the EU's trade commissioner, has explicitly denied this. (See 4.58pm.) He told MPs:
We need to work hard to quash some of the wholly false arguments that are being put about by opponents of TTIP. This does not in any way have to affect our national health service.
Cameron also claimed that there was nothing sinister about the inclusion of an investor state dispute settlement provision (ISDS) in the TTIP. These were a feature of every trade deal Britain has signed, he said, and he claimed Britain had never lost a case. He also claimed that some people who were lobbying MPs about this did not fully understand the issues.
I do think, and I hope as members of parliament we can all try to do this, when you get that barrage of emails - people sometimes have signed up without fully understanding every part of what they've been asked to sign - people want to spread some fear about this thing, and we have a role, I think, of trying to explain properly why these things are good for our country.
He said the European Central Bank should adopt a more activist stance to promote growth in Europe.
Britain and America have shown that an active monetary policy, delivered by an independent central bank, can make a real difference. And I think, with the signs of rather staggered growth in Europe, then there's a need for the European Central Bank to take that action as well.
He signalled that he was planning to give the Charity Commission new powers to stop extremists abusing charity law. Charities could also be given legal advice to help them expel extremists, he hinted.
There is a problem with some charities that have had charity status that have used their existence to support extremism or the extremist narrative. There are two things we need to do here, which we have been looking at through the extremism taskforce. One is to help organisations who might need to take lawyers or legal advice to throw extremists out of their organisations. The second is to make sure the Charity Commission has the resources and the teeth it needs, including possibly new legal powers, so it can take action too.
He signalled that he would approve of extremists fighting with Islamic State being charged with treason. (See 5.13pm.)
The Tory former chief whip Andrew Mitchell is a "Jekyll and Hyde" character with a mixture of charm and menace, his libel trial against the Sun newspaper over the Plebgate affair has heard.
Kelly Tolhurst, the Conservative byelection candidate in Rochester and Strood, has suggested some voters are worried that having a Ukip MP as their local representative could lead to a drop in house prices.
Liz Truss, the environment secretary, has announced measures to deal with an outbreak of avian flu at a duck breeding farm in Yorkshire.
That's all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
block-time published-time 5.15pm GMT
Peter Bone, a Conservative, asks if President Putin really left early because he was tired. Or was it because, like most bullies, he didn't like someone standing up to him.
Cameron says he does not know why Putin left early. He says his view is that you should always stay to the end at summits like this, unless something gets agreed that you disagree with.
And that's it. The statement is over.
I'll post a summary shortly.
block-time published-time 5.13pm GMT
Philip Hollobone, a Conservative, says Britons who fight with Islamist State should be prosecuted for treason.
Cameron says he agrees. These people should face the full force of the law, he says.
block-time published-time 5.07pm GMT
Miliband versus Cameron on the economy
The most interesting aspect of the exchanges between Cameron and Miliband was what they both had to say about the global economy.
Miliband accused Cameron of getting his excuses in early.
Today you tell us there are red lights flashing in the global economy.
I think that is what is known as getting your excuses in early.
You used to tell us that the problems in the British economy were all to do with the British government and nothing to do with international factors.
Now, you want to tell us that on your watch they're all to do with international factors and nothing to do with the British government.
Isn't the truth that before you went to Brisbane we already knew your export targets were off track and the trade deficit is the highest it's been for 25 years?
Before you went to Brisbane, we knew that Britain's productivity had stagnated on your watch.
Before you went to Brisbane, we knew that average families were £1,600 a year worse off.
You have gone from saying everything is fixed thanks to you to everything is not fixed but is nothing to do with you.
All along you should have been listening to the British people who see deep problems in an economy not working for them.
Isn't it time you stopped blaming everybody else for an economy that's great for a few people at the top but isn't delivering for most working people?
Cameron said he was happy to debate Miliband on this.
I'm very happy to defend and take some credit for what is happening in the British economy - growing at 3%, the biggest fall in unemployment on record, 400,000 new businesses.
Because of the difficult decisions that we took, the British economy is doing well.
The difference I would say is now while there are problems in the world economy, you can actually see that Britain is outperforming other countries in the world and the figures speak for themselves.
Cameron also ended with a jibe at Miliband.
Can I say what a pleasure it always is to get back to Britain and find some things haven't changed - our language, the beauties of our climate and that crucially you are still in your place?
(I've taken the quote from the Press Association. Before someone starts complaining BTL, I think they've turned an "right honourable gentleman" into a "you".)
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 5.15pm GMT
block-time published-time 5.00pm GMT
Labour's Andy Sawford asks which prime minister turned up to the discussion on climate change: the one who said he wanted to hug a husky, or the one who said he wanted to cut the crap.
Cameron says it was the one who set up the green investment bank, and the one who commissioned a new nuclear power station when Labour did nothing to restart the nuclear programme.
block-time published-time 4.58pm GMT
Here is the quote that David Cameron cited earlier, from Karel de Gucht, the EU trade commissioner, saying the NHS would not be covered by the free trade provisions in TTIP (which allegedly could open it up to services being taken over by a US firm). It's in this BBC story. De Gucht said:
Public services are always exempted - there is no problem about exemption. The argument is abused in your country for political reasons but it has no grounds.
block-time published-time 4.52pm GMT
Labour's Sheila Gilmore asks why the NHS cannot be formally exempted from TTIP.
Cameron says these ideas can be discussed. But there is not point raising unnecessary fears amongst the public.
block-time published-time 4.48pm GMT
Margaret Ritchie, the SDLP MP, asks if a devolve administration could be forced to pay money to a private company under an investor state dispute settlement (ISDS) under TTIP.
Cameron says these ISDS arrangements have been part of every trade deal Britain has signed. And Britain has never lost a case, he says.
block-time published-time 4.47pm GMT
John Baron, a Conservative, says the problem with talking loudly and carrying a small stick is that you get found out by the bullies.
Camerons says he does not accept that. Britain has one of the top five defence budgets in the word. Two new aircraft carriers are being built, and destroyers. Britain has a full set of capabilities. We should not talk it down.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 6.19pm GMT
block-time published-time 4.45pm GMT
Cameron says a former EU trade commissioner said there was "no problem" about public services being exempted form TTIP and that these arguments were being abused "for political reasons".
block-time published-time 4.44pm GMT
Labour's Gisela Stuart asks why Cameron is so sure that the NHS will not be covered by TTIP.
Cameron says what makes him confident is a statement from the European Commission about states having the right to keep their health service in the public sector.
Politicians should challenge the things being said about TTIP, he says.
block-time published-time 4.43pm GMT
Here's Labour's John Woodcock summarising an exchange he had earlier.
Asked PM if G20 signalled the UK's budget deficit would take even longer to clear. He just said figures "would be set out in the normal way"
- John Woodcock (@JWoodcockMP) November 17, 2014
block-time published-time 4.42pm GMT
Labour's Alison McGovern asks if Cameron will campaign for an international right to health coverage.
Cameron says she's right. This should be considered when the Millennium Development Goals are updated, he says.
block-time published-time 4.40pm GMT
Julian Lewis, a Conservative, asks Cameron for a commitment to keep defence spending above the Nato target (2% of national income) while he is in office.
Cameron says he has set out his plans for this parliament, and that he will set out his plans for the next one at the election.
block-time published-time 4.39pm GMT
Labour's Derek Twigg asks how having so many people on low-paid jobs addresses the productivity problem.
Cameron says a large number of jobs are being created and that it is a myth to say they are all low-paid ones.
block-time published-time 4.38pm GMT
Hugh Robertson, a Conservative, asks if Cameron discussed cutting funds to Islamic State from Arab countries.
Cameron says he discussed this issue with Barack Obama and Tony Abbott, the Australian prime minister.
block-time published-time 4.37pm GMT
Labour's Rushanara Ali asks about an initiative to cut remittance costs for people sending money back to developing countries.
Cameron says remittances are a critical source of income in these countries.
block-time published-time 4.35pm GMT
Sir Edward Leigh, a Conservative, suggests spending £650m from the aid budget on a climate change fund is not the best use of public money.
Cameron say breaking promises to the poorest in the world would not be the right thing to do.
block-time published-time 4.34pm GMT
The SNP's Angus Roberston invites Cameron to congratulate Nicola Sturgeon on becoming leader of the SNP.
Cameron says he is happy to congratulate her. At the G20 almost all leaders came up to say how pleased they were the UK was staying together.
block-time published-time 4.33pm GMT
Liam Fox, the Conservative former defence secretary, says it is the eurozone itself that poses a threat to the EU's recovery.
Cameron says the eurozone needs structural recovery. And Britain and America have shown an active monetary policy can make a difference. The European Central Bank should follow that course.
block-time published-time 4.32pm GMT
Labour's Keith Vaz asks if Cameron discussed trade in his meeting with the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi. And did he invite him to the UK?
Cameron says more can be done to promote trade with India. They discussed the need for the free trade talks with the EU to get going again.
block-time published-time 4.30pm GMT
Cameron says changes in the US Congress make an agreement on TTIP (the transatlantic trade and investment partnership) more likely. But supporters of TTIP must attack the myths about its impact on the NHS, he says.
block-time published-time 4.28pm GMT
Labour's Dennis Skinner accuses Cameron of "hypocrisy" because he is imposing sanctions on Russia, while helping Russians donate to the Conservative party.
Cameron says he does not know where to start. Skinner used to support the Communists, he says, but they don't run Russia any more.
block-time published-time 4.27pm GMT
Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the Conservative former foreign secretary, says further sanctions on Putin and his "cronies" will not have any effect.
Cameron says he disagrees. The value of the rouble has fallen, he says. Economic sanctions are having an effect.
block-time published-time 4.26pm GMT
Labour's Pat McFadden asks if Cameron regrets watering down Labour's anti-terror laws.
Cameron says the government took advice and took the right decisions.
block-time published-time 4.24pm GMT
Jack Straw, the Labour foreign secretary, asks about Luxembourg's "scandalous" record on tax avoidance when Jean-Claude Juncker was prime minister.
Cameron says Luxembourg has now signed up to action on tax avoidance.
block-time published-time 4.23pm GMT
Sir Peter Tapsell, a Conservative, asks if Russia would take more notice if Britain were re-arming.
Cameron says Britain is investing in arms. But what Putin really notices is a united opposition.
block-time published-time 4.21pm GMT
Cameron is responding to Miliband.
He says all EU leaders who met Putin gave him a clear message.
Further destabilisation would trigger more sanctions, he says.
On taxation, Cameron says what is crucial is that tax jurisdictions have agreed to share information.
On climate change, Cameron says Britain has already made money available.
The biggest breakthrough is that China and America came to an agreement on targets at the Asian summit.
On growth, Cameron says he is happy to defend and take some credit for what is happening in the UK: growth at 3pc, the biggest fall in unemployment on record.
The difference is that, while there are problems in the world economy, now Britain is outperforming other countries.
Coming back to the UK, it is a pleasure to see some things have not changed: our language, the pleasures of our climate - and Miliband still in his place.
block-time published-time 4.18pm GMT
Ed Miliband is responding to Cameron.
He endorses Cameron's comments about the murder of Peter Kassig.
On Russia, does Cameron think enough is being done to get Russia out of Ukraine? And what has to happen for further sanctions to be applied?
On corporate taxation, will developing countries be given a role in forming the new rules? This was promised, but has not happened. Why not?
When will the UK announce our contribution to the climate fund?
On Ebola, Miliband welcomes the UK's role as the second largest donor. But the G20 conclusions were short on commitments from other countries. What can be done to get them to contribute more?
On growth, Cameron says there are red lights flashing in the global economy.
I think that is what is known as getting your excuses in early.
Cameron used to say problems with the economy were all to do with UK decisions, not global ones. Now he is saying it's all to do with global factors.
Ed Miliband Photograph: BBC Parliament
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.25pm GMT
block-time published-time 4.13pm GMT
Cameron says the G20 plan is plan for jobs and growth. It is intended to boost the global economy by $2 trillion.
The warning signs in the global economy show it is more important than ever to stick to the government's long-term economic plan, he says.
He says his focus at the summit was helping to deliver global growth by tackling the threats to it.
On free trade, he pushed for the EU/US trade deal to be completed next year. And he pushed for the EU to do other trade deals, including with Australia.
On global taxation, he says there was progress on ensuring big companies pay the taxes they owe. This is a moral issue, as well as an economic one. Cameron says he put this on the G20 agenda at the summit in Northern Ireland. It is not embedded in the G20 agenda.
On the threat posed by conflict and disease, Cameron says he called on Russia to respect the Minsk agreements. And he said Britain was prepared to tighten sanctions. President Putin said he did not want a frozen conflict, and he said he saw Ukraine as a single political space. But he must be judged by his deeds, not his words.
On Ebola, Cameron said he wrote to the Australian prime minister before the summit asking for this to be included. He pushed for global measures to tackle a similar outbreak in future, such as having a standing pool of medics, and more action on fighting bacteria.
This was a good G20 for Britain, he says.
David Cameron Photograph: BBC Parliament
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.24pm GMT
block-time published-time 4.07pm GMT
David Cameron's statement
David Cameron starts by condemning the murder of the US aid worker, Peter Kassig.
He says tackling the threat posed by terror formed part of his conversations with the Australian prime minister. He has announced powers to stop extremists returning to the UK. A full statement about the counter-terrorism bill will be made soon.
block-time published-time 4.03pm GMT
Apparently David Cameron only got back from the G20 summit at lunchtime. And his body clock will be telling him it's the middle of the night. He might not be in a very good mood...
block-time published-time 4.00pm GMT
Lord Ashcroft's weekly poll is out. Here are the figures.
Ashcroft National Poll, 14-16 November: CON 29%, LAB 30%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 16%, GRN 7%. Full details on @ConHome, 4pm.
- Lord Ashcroft (@LordAshcroft) November 17, 2014
Voting intention with changes in this week's ANP: pic.twitter.com/3CehlaCbmy
- Lord Ashcroft (@LordAshcroft) November 17, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.04pm GMT
block-time published-time 3.54pm GMT
Labour's Michael McCann isn't impressed by Cameron's latest argument about the state of the global economy.
Extraordinary that the 2008 global crash was Labour's fault while this isn't the Tories responsibility. http://t.co/FErFSLjWVf
- Michael McCann MP (@MichaelMcCannMP) November 17, 2014
block-time published-time 3.52pm GMT
My statement on #G20 and why warning signs in the global economy mean we must stick to the long term economic plan at 4pm in the Commons.
- David Cameron (@David_Cameron) November 17, 2014
block-time published-time 3.28pm GMT
David Cameron will be making his Commons statement on the G20 summit in about half an hour. It would normally start at 3.30pm, but there is an urgent question about the army reserves first.
For some background, here's a piece from Guardian Australia's Van Badham on 10 things we learnt from the G20.
block-time published-time 2.31pm GMT
Here's a short afternoon reading list.
Nick Robinson on his blog says Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury, told the cabinet last week that there may have to be cuts in the autumn statement.
Philip Cowley at the Conversation looks at how the Conservatives are trying to win in Rochester with a leaflet highlighting their candidate's local credentials, while describing Mark Reckless as someone who studied politics at Oxford and then worked as a political researcher.
Tory leaflet in Rochester Photograph: Conservatives
And Jackie South at All That's Left writes about the same leaflet.
The idea that voting Conservative is a blow against career politicians without local connections is openly risible. To put it on your leaflets is an act of desperate prattishness.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 3.47pm GMT
block-time published-time 1.14pm GMT
Lunchtime summary
A "web of lies, deceit and indiscipline" by police officers led to former government chief whip Andrew Mitchell and his family being subjected to an extended and vitriolic press campaign, the High Court has heard. As the Press Association reports, James Price QC was opening Mitchell's libel action against News Group Newspapers (NGN) over a September 2012 story in The Sun which the MP says meant that he was guilty of launching a grossly offensive and arrogant attack at Downing Street police officers two days earlier, branding them "fucking plebs" and "morons". Mitchell sat in front of his counsel as he told Mr Justice Mitting, who is hearing the case in London without a jury, that what the MP was alleged to have said was a "gross caricature of an attitude of mind which has been out of date for decades". Price said that the detail of the encounter which was leaked to the newspaper by a number of officers was "wholly false".
This web of lies, deceit and indiscipline, and by police officers, led to Mr Mitchell and his family being subjected to an extremely unpleasant, indeed vitriolic, press campaign and a good deal of hostility from the public who believed what they had read in the press. It also placed him in a position where he required considerable determination and, above all, confidence in the rightness of his position, to stand by his account of events.
NGN argues that the article was substantially true and, at the heart of its case, is the account given by Pc Toby Rowland. He claims that Mitchell, having demanded but been denied the right to leave on his bicycle by the main Downing Street gates, lost his temper and said: "Best you learn your fucking place - you don't run this fucking government - you're fucking plebs."
In his witness statement to the court, Mitchell said:
I admit to sometimes using bad language in conversation. I also admit that I can sometimes be impatient and short-tempered when I consider I am being prevented from going about my legitimate business. I even admit that I can be - or at least that I can appear to be - rude on these occasions. To the best of my recollection, I have never called anybody a 'pleb', however, let alone a policeman. Since the incident I have thought long and hard about this and cannot recall a single instance when I have called anybody a 'pleb'. It just isn't a word I use.
For detailed reporting from the trial, @DannyShawBBC, @JoshuaRozenberg and @TimesCrime are all worth following.
Downing Street has said David Cameron will convene a meeting of the government's Cobra contingency committee to consult with security chiefs and other senior officials following the Islamic State beheading of US hostage Peter Kassig.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.39pm GMT
block-time published-time 1.00pm GMT
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has published a short note today saying that the amount the government is saving from changes to benefits and tax credits is much lower than expected. Amongst other reasons, this is partly because of higher spending on pensioners, and partly because anticipated savings from cuts to tax credits, housing benefit and disability living allowance have not materialised.
block-time published-time 12.49pm GMT
George Osborne, the chancellor, has used an interview with BBC News to back David Cameron's comments, in a Guardian article, about the "red warning lights" flashing on the dashboard of the global economy. Osborne said:
You have to make a realistic assesment of the global economy today. We've discovered that Japan has gone into recession, Europe remains vey weak, and although the British economy is perfoming well we're not immune to these things happening in the world. It's all the more reason why we've got to go on working through our long term economic plan and why it would be a complete disaster to divert from that plan, to borrow and spend more. That would put Britain in a place where many other countries find themselves today.
But Natalie Bennett, the Green party leader, has put out a statement saying the coalition is to blame for problems with the economy.
It is helpful that Mr Cameron has finally noticed the extreme fragility of the global economy, if only belatedly, but what's clear from his remarks is that he's trying to lay the blame for the failures of his own government in any place but the right one.
Voters will no doubt recall that this government came into office promising to 'rebalance' our economy, away from the financial sector and back towards manufacturing - a move that would have required substantial investment in the real economy, rather than cash flowing into financial and property speculation.
That has not happened; the UK's rate of investment is comparable to El Salvador's, and the financial sector has debts totalling 1,300% of GDP.
Furthermore, the government has utterly failed to rein in the excesses, the fraud, management and risk-taking of the bankers, as the massive fines for market rigging this week demonstrated
The Green party says this has to end. We need to slash the size of the financial sector and see that it serves the needs of a boosted real economy that manufactures the goods and grows the food that we need, providing jobs that workers can live on, and homes they can afford. That would also reduce our exposure to the international economic, political and military turbulence.
Natalie Bennett Photograph: Mark Kerrison/Mark Kerrison/Demotix/Corbis
block-time published-time 12.29pm GMT
Here's the Press Association on the security scare at Westminster this morning. (See 10.28am.)
A security alert which closed a key Parliamentary building was sparked by suspicions over a tablet computer belonging to a minister's aide.
Portcullis House - which contains MPs' offices and committee rooms - was evacuated and sealed off while police examined the device.
Tory MP Nick Boles took to Twitter to reveal that the false alarm erupted around his newly-recruited apprentice.
"An exciting start to my apprentice's first day at Parliament: the whole of Portcullis House evacuated cos of security scare over his iPad!" the Skills Minster posted.
His office said he was not providing any more details of the incident - which saw a number of high-profile figures locked out of meetings.
Scotland Yard confirmed that an item found in the airport security-style entrance area of the building opposite the Palace of Westminster was investigated and found not to be suspicious.
And here's the tweet from Nick Boles, the minister for skills.
An exciting start to my apprentice's first day at Parliament: the whole of Portcullis House evacuated cos of security scare over his iPad!
- Nick Boles (@NickBolesMP) November 17, 2014
block-time published-time 12.06pm GMT
A Rochester byelection round-up
Here is a Rochester byelection round-up.
Matthew Goodwin in the Telegraph says Ukip has professionalised its campaigning operation.
It started in Clacton. That by-election was significant not only because it launched Ukip into Westminster, but also because it taught the party how to campaign. Clacton was the first electoral battle in which Ukip waged a modern, professional and intensive effort. It was the first time that Ukip experimented with a "voter identification system" - a database of information on each voter - and therefore the first time that the party approached different areas with different messages.
Thus Labour voters heard about opposition to the "bedroom tax" and the need to punish bankers; Tory voters heard about the need for more GPs. It was also the first time that younger Ukippers became seriously involved, learning the importance of more targeted, subtle and nuanced messages before their own campaigns next May along the East Coast.
Ironically, this change was not the product of diehard Ukippers but of two new recruits: the defector Douglas Carswell, who has long written about how to revitalise parties; and the experienced organiser Chris Bruni-Lowe, who used to run local referendums for MPs.
Their priority was to own the "local space" before other parties arrived. In Clacton, the frontline was not Europe or immigration. It was fixing street lights, finding more GPs, saving a maternity unit and curbing knife crime.
Precisely the same is now happening in Mark Reckless's seat of Rochester and Strood. The Tories have started too late and remain focused on a story about the national economic recovery, which even a quick look at the surveys would show is not being felt by most Ukip voters.
Kelly Tolhurst, the Conservative candidate, tells the Telegraph she has "never been a massive fan of politicians". She says:
I do believe that I am a normal person. The only candidate who is a true person of Rochester and Strood is me... I've not wanted to be an MP since I was nine. I'm not a career politician, I never set out to do this. But I really want to represent this area because I come from here, I know the people and I think I can do a good job.
Roger Helmer, the Ukip MEP, says the party will benefit in the byelection from the government's decision to pledge hundreds of millions of pounds to a new Green Climate Fund in Berlin on the same day as the poll.
Cameron to announce £600 million foreign aid "to fight climate change". How many votes will that be worth in Rochester?
- Roger Helmer (@RogerHelmerMEP) November 17, 2014
Mike Smithson says people who have made a forecast of the byelection result on his Political Betting website expect Ukip to win by an average margin of 8.88 percentage points.
Final consensus in the PB Rochester by-election prediction competition is that UKIP will win with margin of 8.88% pic.twitter.com/tshw0uCzEE
- Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 11.37am GMT
David Cameron is going to host a Cobra meeting on the latest Islamic State beheading, Downing Street announced at the Number 10 lobby briefing.
Prime Minister to chair Cobra meeting on the latest Isis beheading video when he returns from the G20 http://t.co/61BgDR2ZGR
- ITV News (@itvnews) November 17, 2014
There is also going to be a statement in the Commons from Cameron on the G20 summit at 3.30pm this afternoon.
block-time published-time 11.13am GMT
The plebgate libel trial has got underway.
I won't be providing minute-by-minute coverage here, but the BBC's Danny Shaw seems to be providing good rolling coverage here on Twitter. Here are his opening posts.
Main issue for libel case is whether Andrew Mitchell did swear at police & describe them as "plebs". Mr Justice Mitting presiding. #plebgate
- Danny Shaw (@DannyShawBBC) November 17, 2014
#plebgate James Price QC tells court Andrew Mitchell is "innocent man" as he outlines his case at start of libel action
- Danny Shaw (@DannyShawBBC) November 17, 2014
#plebgate Price says police responsible for a "web of lies, deceit & indiscipline" which led to "vitriolic" press campaign against Mitchell
- Danny Shaw (@DannyShawBBC) November 17, 2014
#plebgate Price: Andrew Mitchell is "not a snob, he is a good man". The word "pleb" is "not in his vocabulary..it's the very opposite of...
- Danny Shaw (@DannyShawBBC) November 17, 2014
#plebgate Desmond Browne QC for Toby Rowland says Mitchell was a "Jekyll & Hyde" character - a "mix of charm & menace"
- Danny Shaw (@DannyShawBBC) November 17, 2014
#plebgate Browne says Mitchell has "foul temper" & uses "foul language"
- Danny Shaw (@DannyShawBBC) November 17, 2014
#plebgate Browne says Mitchell told security officer in another encounter he was "a little s***"
- Danny Shaw (@DannyShawBBC) November 17, 2014
#plebgate Browne says Mitchell put another officer down saying "that's a bit above your pay grade Mr Plod"
- Danny Shaw (@DannyShawBBC) November 17, 2014
block-time published-time 11.03am GMT
Rochester byelection hustings - Summary and verdict
Who's winning in Rochester and Strood? Having listening to this morning's hustings, I'm tempted to conclude that the answer is - Sir John Major. I spent a day in the constituency three and half weeks ago - you can read about it here - and I was told explicitly by Ukip that they were putting immigration at the heart of their campaign. They showed me this, which they described as their main campaign leaflet.
Ukip election leaflet in Rochester pic.twitter.com/EeHeXUqwLW
- AndrewSparrow (@AndrewSparrow) November 17, 2014
Yet today a different story emerged. This is the key news line from this morning's hustings.
Mark Reckless, the Ukip candidate, has downplayed the importance of immigration as a key campaign issue. Asked at the start of the BBC Radio Kent hustings to summarise in 60 seconds why he should be MP, he did not mention immigration and instead said he was focusing on health.
First and foremost, because I'm putting backing Medway's NHS at the centre of my campaign. My father's a doctor, my mother was a nurse and I'm extremely concerned that under both of the parties we've seen problems at Medway hospital being allowed to fester for at least a decade now. Kelly Tolhurst, the Conservative candidate and Reckless's main rival, also highlighted the state of the local hospital as her main issue.
Why could this mark a result for Major? Because, within the last week, he has twice spoken out on this subject in ways that seem designed to shame Ukip over its anti-immigration stance. Last week he spoke about his "huge admiration" for immigrants, and yesterday he described Ukip as a party of "negativity and sheer nastiness".
There could be an alternative theory. In an interview with BBC Radio Kent after the hustings, Tim Bale, an academic, said Ukip could be focusing on health because they "own" immigration as an issue anyway. Perhaps. But if you "own" an issue and you think it's winning you votes, it is customary to keep banging on about it.
As for the rest of the hustings, here's my verdict on how the candidates performed.
Mark Reckless: He easily comes over as the most professional candidate (as you would expect from someone who's been the local MP for more than four years) and he comfortably trumped Tolhurst at several points on local detail. But he was given an easy ride. His Lodge Hill flip-flop was only addressed fleetingly at the end (see 10am), and sadly he was not challenged on why a man now fighting a byelection on his commitment to the NHS defected to a party run by a man who two years ago wanted to dismantle it.
Kelly Tolhurst : Rather poor. Having impeccable local credentials is a strength, but she is weak on policy, having little to say when pressed on what she wanted David Cameron to do about immigration (see 9.33am) and, given what the presenter was revealing about the state of Medway schools, she is probably lucky that this has not been a bigger issue in the campaign in the light of her role as cabinet member on the council in charge of education.
Naushabah Khan: She was good. I probably wouldn't go as far as Rod Liddle, who described her as "best, by a million miles" after another hustings, but she was articulate, and had a good grasp of the issues.
Geoff Juby: For understandable reasons, he sounded as if his heart wasn't really in it . (The latest Ashcroft poll puts the Lib Dems on 2% in this fight.)
Clive Gregory: He sounded refreshingly different. Listening to him made me think that Natalie Bennett could do well if she gets included in a UK televised leaders' debate, not so much because the country would endorse every Green policy, but because there is an appetite for an alternative to what the main parties are offering, and the Greens could fill it.
block-time published-time 10.30am GMT
That didn't last long.
Security Alert is over at Portcullis House. Roads and building reopened.
- Darren McCaffrey (@DMcCaffreySKY) November 17, 2014
block-time published-time 10.28am GMT
There is a security alert at Parliament. Portcullis House, the building opposite the main Houses of Parliament where many MPs have offices, has been partly evacuated because of a suspect package.
Westminster cleared of people and traffic after major security scare around Parliament pic.twitter.com/Ym5pNIHiSW
- Jordan Newell (@jordannewell) November 17, 2014
suspect package at portcullis house - Waterloo bridge shut - though policeman tells me it should be sorted soon pic.twitter.com/sxbxFesBFd
- Beth Rigby (@BethRigby) November 17, 2014
block-time published-time 10.00am GMT
Q: Why is there not central fund to help countries accept migrants?
Gregory says that would be a good idea.
Q: Why are disability issues not featuring in the campaign?
Juby says he has only been approached by one disability group?
Q: Ukip have no credibility. They flip-flop. When you were a Conservative MP, you defended the plan for the Lodge Hill development. Now you are against it?
Reckless says that, since he made those comments, it has been designated a site of special scientific interest. If it were allowed to go ahead, the whole system of environmental protection would fall apart. One of his reasons for holding the byelection was to campaign against this, he says.
Khan says she is in favour of Lodge Hill. Extra homes are needed. Both Reckless and Tolhurst have changed their mind on this, she says.
Tolhurst says that's not true. She has never voted against it, she says.
And that's it.
I'll post a summary soon.
block-time published-time 9.56am GMT
Tolhurst says Reckless claims he secured the funding for Stood academy. But that happened before he became MP.
And she says Reckless talked about two primaries closing. That was Labour policy, she says.
Reckless disputes that. He says it was a decision taken by the council.
block-time published-time 9.54am GMT
Juby says Labour created the academies.
Khan says people do not understand that there is a difference between Labour and coalition academies. Under Labour, academy status was used to improve failing schools. Under the coalition, the best schools have been encouraged to become academies.
block-time published-time 9.52am GMT
Gregory say the whole system is a problem. There is too much focus on league tables. Teachers should be allowed to teach.
Q: That's Michael Gove's fault, isn't it?
Reckless says Gove was right to place an emphasis on standards.
Reckless says there has not been enough urgency at the council.
He has a one-year-old child, and two-and-a-half-year-old. There is a good local primary near him. But he is just outside the catchment areas.
He says Tolhurst is responsible for local schools being poor.
Tolhurst says she has been working hard to improve schools. She has set up a system where schools have to come in an explain their Ofsted performance.
We are seeing improvements, she says.
But these things do not change overnight.
block-time published-time 9.49am GMT
Q: [To Khan] What would you do about local schools?
Khan says she went to local schools, and she is a school governor.
Q: You're governor of a secondary school. Do you have a problem with the quality of children coming through?
No, says Khan. But it's a selective school.
Tolhurst says that Khan is contradicting herself, saying standards generally are poor, but not at the intake for her school.
Khan does not accept that. (Julia George, the presenter, says it's a selective school.)
block-time published-time 9.45am GMT
Q: [To Tolhurst] You have been the cabinet member for schools on Medway council.
For 18 months, says Tolhurst.
Q: School performance has been catastrophically bad. It is near the bottom of the table nationally on various educational measures. You say you will give parents a choice of outstanding schools. But there aren't any here.
Tolhurst says she has been addressing these problems.
Key stage two results have improved, she says. For the first time in many years schools in Rochester and Strood are going to achieve 100% at key stage two.
Q: Most of these schools are going to be given to other schools to look after because Medway council has done so badly.
Tolhurst says, since she has had this portfolio, there have been improvements.
Partnership working is important, she says. The council has encouraged that.
block-time published-time 9.39am GMT
Juby says there is one school in the Medway were pupils speak more than 100 languages. Immigration puts pressure on services. But he concedes he does not have all the answers.
block-time published-time 9.38am GMT
Reckless says Tolhurst wants to limit the number of immigrants coming from the EU. But you cannot do this if you are in the EU. So, Kelly, will you join me in campaigning to leave the EU.
Tolhurst says Cameron wants to limit the numbers coming in.
Khan says, when Cameron made his Bloomberg speech on the EU last year, he did not even mention immigration.
Tolhurst says Cameron has a record of delivering, on issues like the EU budget. She will keep pushing him on immigration until he delivers.
It's "words not action," says Reckless.
Juby says immigration is good for this country. And limits would be dangerous. There are around 200,000 Spanish people in the UK, but more than one million Britons in Spain.
block-time published-time 9.35am GMT
Q: [To Gregory] You would let anyone in?
No, says Gregory. But what goes around comes around. There are Britons working abroad as a result of the EU.
block-time published-time 9.34am GMT
Khan says immigrants are contributing a great deal to the economy.
And the EU is bringing inward investment to the area.
Q: What is your real position? You speak about its benefits. But you seem to have been nobbled by Labour, and talk about the problems too.
Khan says she does not accept that. The last Labour government made mistakes.
block-time published-time 9.33am GMT
Q: [To Tolhurst] Has someone told you not to mention it?
Tolhurst says immigration has benefits. But it is having a big impact locally. We need to take measures to reduce it.
Q: What are you urging Cameron to do?
Tolhurst says she wants him to fight, and have a renegotiation with Europe.
People coming to this country should work and contribute. It should not be open to immigrants who are not working, she says.
Q: But that's happening?
There is more we could do, Tolhurst says.
Q: But what about people coming here to work? What do you want him to do?
Tolhurst says she would like Cameron to control the numbers.
Q: How?
By having some agreement?
Q: Permanently? Or temporarily, as John Major suggested.
For a short period of time, says Tolhurst.
block-time published-time 9.30am GMT
Q: In other debates immigration has come up a lot. Has anyone told you not to mention it?
Reckless says people know Ukip has a fair policy on immigration, with an Australian-style points system.
Q: Do you think this is not a vote winner?
Reckless says it is a huge issue. It gets raised a lot on the doorstep.
Q: You did not mention it in your opening remarks.
Reckless says he thought it would come up.
block-time published-time 9.28am GMT
Q: What would you do to improve health?
Tolhurst says Medway hospital being in special measures in unacceptable. She has a personal interest; the hospital save her life last year.
She has talked about this with Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, who was down here last week. She would like to pair the Medway hospital up with an outstanding hospital, possibly a London one, to drive it out of special measures.
Reckless says the hospital has already paired up with the Homerton hospital to improve A&E.
Tolhurst says a general pairing would be good.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.07am GMT
block-time published-time 9.26am GMT
Julia Smith says there used to be two mental health wards in the local hospital. Now there is just two thirds of one.
Q: Does that concern you?
Juby says this concerns him very much. This is a national problem. The Mental Health Trust is not getting the money it needs.
Q: Is this because mental health does not get parity with physical health?
Juby says the problem is we say we want to treat people in the community, but do not give them proper back-up.
Q: What about people who need a hospital bed?
Juby says he agrees; there need to be more beds.
Q: Would you fight for more mental health beds?
Juby says in Medway the Lib Dems have been fighting for more beds. And this is a Lib Dem priority nationally too.
block-time published-time 9.19am GMT
Q: What would the Green party do on mental health?
Gregory says Reckless is right to say there is no proper management. You need a full-time CEO in charge.
The NHS will get worse if TTIP comes in, he says. We must stop that, or we will lose the NHS completely. The NHS has to be taken out of TTIP. And the Health Act must be repealed.
Q: But what would you do in the constituency?
Gregory says the management is the main issue.
block-time published-time 9.17am GMT
Julia George says it is interesting how much emphasis they are putting on health. At the start of the campaign immigration was more of an issue.
Q: What could you do to improve the hospital?
Khan says she would vote for the bill that stops the privatisation of the health service.
Q: It's not just the hospital, is it? Labour say they would allow people to see a GP within 48 hours. But Labour raised GP salaries, while allowing GPs to opt out of night calls.
Khan says when Labour was in power you could see a GP within 48 hours. You cannot now. Labour would hire another 8,000 GPs. It would fund that through a Time to Care fund, raising money from a levy on tobacco firms and a mansion tax.
Q: [To Reckless] Did you take your eye off the ball on Medway Maritime hospital?
Reckless says there is an alphabet soup of regulators. Ukip would have a single elected health board looking after Medway. That would unify management and oversight.
Q: What have you failed to do?
Reckless said that, when the Medway hospital went into special measures, he complained that no one was in overall charge.
The existing management team was left in place, with no support.
Q: What did you do when a chairman was brought in on a part-time basis on a huge salary?
Reckless says he said that was unacceptable.
Q: Do you ever ask your family about this?
Reckless says he talks to his family a lot about this. His brother is a doctor and medical director.
block-time published-time 9.11am GMT
George is asking each candidate to give a one minute reason why they should be the MP.
Labour's Naushabah Khan says, as someone born in the constituency, she knows they can get things right. But there are issues to address, like the local hospital.
Clive Gregory, the Green candidate, says he has live on the Hoo peninsula for more than 20 years. He is absolutely opposed to the Lodge Hill development. And the Greens have the right stance on other issues too.
Ukip's Mark Reckless says he is putting the Medway hospital at the heart of his campaign. His father was a doctor, his mother was a nurse. He wants a unitary health authority for the area.
The Lib Dems' Geoff Juby says he has lived in Medway for 30 years. He would fight for better health services and better transport.
Kelly Tolhurst, the Conservative, says she is the true local candidate. She was born here, went to school here and runs a business here. She wants to bring the hospital out of special measures. It's a two-horse race. If you don't want a Ukip MP, vote for me, she says.
block-time published-time 9.06am GMT
Julia George is presenting the show. It will last for an hour.
She will be asking questions, but also taking questions.
You can email her at julia@bbc.co.uk
block-time published-time 9.00am GMT
You can follow the hustings live on BBC Radio Kent here.
block-time published-time 8.59am GMT
Rochester byelection hustings on BBC Radio Kent
There are 13 candidates in the Rochester and Strood byelection. The full list is here.
The five main ones are taking part in the hustings. They are:
Clive Gregory - Green party
Geoff Juby - Lib Dems
Naushabah Khan - Labour
Mark Reckless - Ukip
Kelly Tolhurst - Conservative
block-time published-time 8.55am GMT
There are three more days of campaigning befoe the Rochester and Strood byelection and this morning the five main candidates are taking part in a hustings being broadcast on BBC Radio Kent. Mark Reckless, the Ukip candidate who triggered the byelection by leaving the Conservatives and resigning as the constitutency's MP, has been criticised for missing some of the other hustings, but he is taking part today.
Just off to Chatham studio to go on @BBCRADIOKENT for my third debate with other candidates from 9-10am
- Mark Reckless (@MarkReckless) November 17, 2014
I'll cover the whole event live.
Here's the agenda for the day.
9am: BBC Radio Kent Rochester byelection hustings.
10.30am: The libel cases involving Andrew Mitchell, the former Conservative chief whip, and PC Toby Rowland starts at the Royal Courts of Justice. The cases revolve around whether Mitchell did or did not call the police plebs.
11am: Number 10 lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Theresa May, the home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
3pm: Sir David Higgins, HS2 chairman, gives evidence to the Commons transport committee.
As usual, I will be also covering all the breaking political news from Westminster, as well as bringing you the most interesting political comment and analysis from the web and from Twitter. I will post a summary at lunchtime, but I will be wrapping up after that because I've got a meeting this afternoon.
If you want to follow me on Twitter, I'm on @AndrewSparrow.
LOAD-DATE: November 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
268 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 17, 2014 Monday 2:58 PM GMT
G20 Brisbane: what the development community should be hoping for;
Australian summit must find space in crowded communique for sustainable growth, climate change and tax and transparency
BYLINE: Graham Gordon
SECTION: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT
LENGTH: 580 words
Australia has focused firmly on financial regulation and increasing growth for the G20 summit in Brisbane that opens on Saturday. Although discussions are likely to be dominated by Ebola, Isis and Ukraine, development and anti-corruption feature high on its agenda. The G20 is not a decision-making body on many global issues, yet it can still send a strong message that helps unlock international processes. What can the development community hope to see reflected in the communique, the official post-summit report?
Growth that is inclusive and sustainable
The Australian presidency is committed to focus on 2% GDP growth over the next five years as the gold standard. But economic growth doesn't necessarily result in jobs and improved livelihoods for the most vulnerable groups. Zambia, for example, has had 6% GDP growth rate for the past 10 years, yet job creation is stuck at 1%.
Much current growth is not sustainable because it contributes to climate change and can have negative impacts on the environment, in terms of pollution and increased pressure on scarce resources, as demonstrated by Cafod's partner in Peru.
With high levels of poverty and inequality in many G20 countries, as well as environmental impacts that affect people's livelihoods, in Brisbane the focus needs to be on growth that is inclusive and sustainable.
More than just commitments on climate change
So far the Australian presidency has resisted pressure from the US and Europe to include climate change in the G20 agenda on the grounds that it doesn't fit the economic focus of the summit - although it has been part of the discussions on energy and infrastructure. Climate change is unlikely to have much space in the communique, but as a minimum we would expect leaders to recommit themselves to reaching a global deal to limit global warming at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Paris next year, as well as to contribute the finance.
Each year, the G20 boldly recommits to phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, yet each year no concrete action appears to have been taken. With the global political context having changed, however, since Ban Ki-moon's climate summit in September, leaders must develop a plan through the energy sustainability working group - a step backwards would send all the wrong signals to other international processes.
Action to tackle tax and transparency evasions
Issues of beneficial ownership, automatic exchange of tax information and transparency in extractive industry payments have all been part of the G20 anti-corruption working group. They have also gained a higher profile through other forums such as the G8 in Lough Erne in 2013 and the Open Government Partnership, showing how international processes can be complementary.
If G20 commitments are to benefit developing countries, we expect to see an agreement on creating national registers of beneficial owners of companies, as well as a reaffirmation and action on past commitments to reach a global standard on extractive industry payment transparency.
And beyond this G20? As Turkey takes over the presidency for such a crucial year ahead, we hope to see a commitment to positive engagement from all G20 countries to reach ambitious and transformative agreements on trade, development, climate and finance next year. Having already said its priority is to make the G20 agenda work for developing countries, 2015 is a great opportunity for Turkey to deliver.
Graham Gordon is head of policy at Cafod
LOAD-DATE: November 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
269 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 17, 2014 Monday 12:09 PM GMT
The moral hazard of geoengineering;
Would technologies that could remove CO2 from Earth's climate make people carefree about polluting the environment?
BYLINE: Adam Corner
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 751 words
If you thought there was a machine that could magically remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and bury it underground, would you be less likely to worry about reducing your own carbon footprint?
The question is not entirely hypothetical. Geoengineering is the catch-all term for a suite of technologies that could one day be used to alter the Earth's climate and combat global warming. Most of them are unlikely to ever see the light of day: they are considered too risky, too unpredictable, or too reckless to be taken seriously by the scientific community.
But the warnings from scientists about the dangers of a warmer world (and the inadequacy of existing climate policies) have become shriller by the year. And as a result, the voices whispering that geoengineering could one day become a reality have grown harder to ignore.
As geoengineering has gradually moved on to the policy agenda, debates about the ethics of meddling with the global thermostat have become more prominent. Central among these is whether geoengineering might undermine fragile public and political support for the more pressing business of reducing carbon emissions.
This is what is known by economists and philosophers as a 'moral hazard' argument: the phenomenon whereby people who feel insured against a particular risk are more likely to exhibit risky behaviour. Will the prospect of geoengineering make people feel 'insured' against the risks of climate change, and indulge in 'riskier' environmental behaviour themselves?
In a paper published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society on Monday, my colleague Nick Pidgeon and I attempted to answer that question. Using a nationally representative online survey, we provided 610 people with a 'factsheet' about geoengineering, and then asked them a series of questions.
One striking finding was that some people seem more susceptible to the 'trap' of the moral hazard than others.
People who were wealthier, and who identified with self-focused values such as power and status, were more likely to agree with the statement "Knowing geoengineering is a possibility makes me feel less inclined to make changes in my own behaviour to tackle climate change."
In general, people who are wealthier have bigger carbon footprints. Our findings suggest that people with bigger carbon footprints may treat geoengineering as an excuse to avoid personal behavioural changes. People in the study who held pro-environmental values didn't see themselves as susceptible to the moral hazard, but feared that other people - and especially politicians - would take their eye off the ball if geoengineering was on the horizon.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, climate change sceptics were not particularly worried that geoengineering would distract attention from other climate policies. After all, if someone doesn't support policies to tackle climate change in the first place, then the moral hazard of geoengineering is really not a hazard at all.
Previous research has suggested, though, that geoengineering could be more appealing to sceptics than existing climate policies (as it doesn't involve regulating industries or government intervention in people's daily lives) or that it could even galvanise support for climate change among this group.
But our findings did not back this. Learning about geoengineering from the information provided in our study didn't alter levels of concern about climate change among sceptical participants.
This is the first time that any systematic evidence has been produced on how this key aspect of the geoengineering debate will shape the public discourse as it moves into the mainstream. What seems clear is that people with different values (and views on climate change) will respond to the logic of the moral hazard argument in very different ways.
For those deeply worried by society's inadequate response to climate change, and doubtful of politicians' commitment to the issue, the moral hazard of geoengineering confirms their worst fears.
But for people with an inconveniently large carbon footprint - or those who had no intention of reducing it in the first place - the prospect of geoengineering could be less a of a moral hazard and more of a 'moral license' to continue with business as usual.
Adam Corner is the research director for the Climate Outreach & Information Network (Coin) and an honorary research fellow in the School of Psychology at Cardiff University
LOAD-DATE: November 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
270 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 17, 2014 Monday 8:40 AM GMT
More than 22,000 species feature in conservationists' 'under threat' list;
Japanese yen for Pacific bluefin tuna, climate change and demand for minerals from animals' habitats put species at risk· Species under threat - interactive
BYLINE: Adam Vaughan
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 535 words
A fluorescent pink slug and one of the world's most expensive fish are among the species included in an update to the list of the world's most threatened animals.
Mankind's demand for the wood, stone and oil where the species live, as well as using them for food, is blamed for pushing many towards the brink of extinction, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature said in its authoritative Red List update.
The Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis), a meaty fish prized in Japan that was previously listed as a species of least concern, has seen numbers decline by up to a third over the past two decades leading it to be reclassified as vulnerable. The main threat to the species is its value as sashimi - one fish can fetch more than $100,000 (£64,000).
The appetite for sashimi is also blamed for the decline of the Chinese pufferfish (Takifugu chinensis), one of the world's most toxic fish. It is now classified as critically endangered, the Red List's most severe listing and the final step before extinction.
The American eel is upgraded to endangered status because of the decline of its Japanese counterpart, leading Asian markets to look elsewhere. The Anguilla rostrata can sell for as much as $2,200 per pound, and demand is such that a 2012 report said stocks were at "historically low levels". The remaining eels are also threatened by poaching.
The updated list reveals that the world's biggest earwig - the St Helena Giant Earwig (Labidura herculeana) measuring up to 80mm long compared to the European earwig's 12-15mm - has become extinct. It used to live on a protected part of the island, but the stones that it lived under have been removed for use in construction. Mice and rats also contributed to its extinction.
Julia Marton-Lefèvre, the IUCN's director general, said: "Each update of the IUCN Red List makes us realise that our planet is constantly losing its incredible diversity of life, largely due to our destructive actions to satisfy our growing appetite for resources.
"But we have scientific evidence that protected areas can play a central role in reversing this trend. Experts warn that threatened species poorly represented in protected areas are declining twice as fast as those which are well represented."
In Australia, the Kaputar Pink Slug (Triboniophorus) lives solely on a mountaintop in New South Wales. It already lives at the highest levels of Mount Kaputar. Conservationists fear that it will have nowhere to go as climate change causes temperatures to rise.
Charopa lafargei, a Malaysian snail, was only identified by scientists this year, but is already listed at the highest threat level. It is named after Lafarge, the company that works the cement quarry near its limestone hill habitat.
Of the 76,199 species assessed in the Red List update, published at a conservation summit in Sydney, 22,413 are ranked as threatened to varying degrees.
Two amphibians are among the list's few winners. Andinobates dorisswansonae and Andinobates tolimensis, frogs found only in the Colombian Andes, are both classified downwards in threat level because of protections brought in for the tract of forest where they live, which the IUCN described as well-protected.
LOAD-DATE: November 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
271 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 17, 2014 Monday 8:15 AM GMT
China and Australia sign historic free trade agreement - politics live;
With the G20 now done and dusted, MPs are gathered in Canberra for a special sitting of the parliament. China's president Xi Jinping has addressed the parliament, and inked a new free trade deal with Canberra. All the developments, live
BYLINE: Katharine Murphy
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 9652 words
block-time published-time 7.13pm AEST
Zaijian
Zaijian blogans.
The President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping with Prime Minister Tony Abbott at a joint statement in the main committee room of Parliament House Canberra this afternoon, Monday 17th November 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
Well, that will do for this evening. Thank you very much for your fine company throughout the day. I'll be back early tomorrow with Politics Live - another special sitting beckons on the morrow for Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister. And that FTA will continue to bounce bounce bounce through the news cycle. Bounce. Yes, enough.
Today, Monday:
Brisbane folded its tent and Canberra relocated back to Canberra after all that G20 business.
Sydney broadcaster Alan Jones shouted at the prime minister for fifteen minutes for failing to meet the pub test and for producing an agreement that Alan didn't like because it didn't allow the prime minister to buy a coal mine in China. Whether the prime minister wanted to buy a coal mine in China was a question that Alan didn't linger on. The fact that the agreement had not yet been produced at that point was also moved past rather quickly.
The pomp and circumstance began in Canberra to mark t he "historic" visit of Xi Jinping. Wildlife was inspected. A wombat was cuddled. The sun shone.
President Xi made his way to parliament and spoke of China being the big guy in Asia, but the big non threatening peacenik guy in Asia, so long as everyone understood China was the actual Asia superpower and not some other country that wasn't actually mentioned. (Hint: the other country wasn't Australia.)
The FTA, dubbed the virtual agreement by China's Xinhua news agency, was duly produced. It was a virtual agreement in the strict sense (there was no text, and much of the controversial stuff was actually not in the text-that-wasn't-a-text but perhaps merely an indicative form of words); but it did have a number of specific commitments that were welcomed by business happy to get whatever could be gained from Beijing.
President Xi told us to look into the sun because then you don't see shadows. (Do not try that at home, children.) He also told us that it was very hard to sharpen a sword but it was all good as long at the sword got sharpened in the end. This wisdom was imparted at a press conference that journalists were cordially not invited to attend.
That's today, at least all the important bits.
Have a lovely evening. See you on the morrows.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 7.14pm AEST
block-time published-time 6.49pm AEST
Before we wrap for tonight - just a bit more lovely Bowers from officialdom versus dissent down the front today.
Superb shot.
Protestors for and against the visit of The President of China Xi Jinping out the front of Parliament House this afternoon, Monday 17th November 2014 Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 6.46pm AEST
Just a couple of other points for context:
China's FTA with New Zealand imposed labour market testing for contractural service suppliers.
The Abbott government removed labour market testing from the recent Korean FTA for contractural service suppliers. Labor supported the Korean FTA, but there was a fight about that in the caucus.
block-time published-time 6.37pm AEST
Just on that broad labour mobility point, a short statement just now from the immigration minister Scott Morrison.
The Investment Facilitation Arrangement will allow Chinese owned companies registered in Australia to negotiate project-based labour agreements for large infrastructure development projects.
Sponsors seeking to enter into a labour agreement under the Investment Facilitation Arrangement would need to demonstrate a labour market need, pay the Australian market salary rate and comply with all Australian laws, including those relating to employment and licensing.
block-time published-time 6.30pm AEST
Devil in (no) detail: watch this space folks
I'm interested in the FTA's labour mobility provisions because Labor has already flagged that it may not support this trade pact if it allows Chinese workers to take jobs that would otherwise be done by Australians.
The wording in this not-yet-finished text is very non-specific about when labour market testing would apply. The words "labour market testing" do not actually appear in the reference to Chinese contractual service suppliers in this text. The omission may be deliberate, or it may not. It looks like one of those situations where the devil is in the detail which we don't have yet.
The President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping after addressing a special joint sitting of the Reps chamber of Parliament House Canberra this afternoon, Monday 17th November 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
There's also no specifics about the investor state dispute settlement mechanism - another potential flashpoint in the Labor caucus. Well it will be a flashpoint. It's just hard to say whether it will be a deal breaking flashpoint or a noisy but not terribly consequential flashpoint.
It's these two issues that are most problematic for Labor. One unsettles the traditional industrial left, the other the progressive inner city left.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 6.34pm AEST
block-time published-time 6.03pm AEST
Just while I digest the labour and people movement provisions - quick flashback. The look that Jacqui Lambie has on her face here..
PUP senator Jacqui Lambie at a special joint sitting of the house to hear an address from the President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping Parliament House Canberra this afternoon, Monday 17th November 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
.. is intended for this chap. Her boss.
Finance Minister Mathias Corrman and PUP leader Clive Palmer at a special joint sitting of the house to hear an address from the President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping Parliament House Canberra this afternoon, Monday 17th November 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 5.59pm AEST
Back to the detail now. The Coalition says this new FTA provides significant breakthroughs in services : better market access for banks, insurers, law firms, education services providers, construction and manufacturing. This includes an agreement by China to allow Australian owned hospitals and aged care facilities to operate in China. I doubt this includes media companies. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Investment I've already flagged, at least in part. The new agreement will give Chinese investors (private investors) the same rules as the US, Japan and Korea - so the screening threshold goes from $248m to just over $1bn. All state owned investment will be screened. There will be special caps for farmland and agri-businesses.
block-time published-time 5.48pm AEST
Ah yes, off they go.
No questions.
block-time published-time 5.48pm AEST
As far as I know this is one of those absolutely ideal press conferences where journalists are not permitted to ask any questions.
Mr Bowers tells me images are also pooled for this event - highly unusual. He can't remember a comparable example in thirty years.
President Xi.
As the Chinese saying goes..
(Yes, here it comes)
.. it takes 10 years to sharpen a sword so we are so glad to see that after nearly 10 years of negotiation our two sides have announced the conclusion to the bilateral FTA negotiation.
As a Chinese saying goes, even a thoroughbred cannot cover ten paces in a single stride but even a worn out horse can.
(That last one is in the staring at the sun category.)
block-time published-time 5.41pm AEST
Now..
(You can't always get what you wah-nt.)
Abbott:
Now, in life you don't have one-way relationships, because one-way relationships are not sustainable - and in trade, which is an expression of two countries working together, you always have two-way relationships.
I should stress that negotiations are negotiations and you don't always get everything that you want in a negotiation but, as I said, there will be the chance to review the agreement and review it within three years.
block-time published-time 5.38pm AEST
Bit rude about New Zealand.
Abbott:
This agreement is the first that China has concluded with a substantial economy, with a major economy; and it's the most comprehensive agreement that China has concluded with anyone.
It opens the doors to Australia and it opens the doors to China. It's a reflection on both our countries' ability to be reliable partners and obviously what this agreement means is more jobs.
block-time published-time 5.36pm AEST
I'll come back to detailing outcomes, but I need to digress briefly to cover the formal remarks on the proposed FTA from Tony Abbott and Xi Jinping.
History, the prime minister says. History.
Tony Abbott:
I think we've heard from the president of speech of historical significance so this is not just a historical day for Australia with the signing of our free trade agreement, it is a historical day for China with some of the statements that the president has chosen to make to the Australian parliament about the democratisation of China and the fundamentally ethical approach that China intends to take with its partners, with its neighbours in its region and in the wider world.
History.
block-time published-time 5.30pm AEST
To the gains.
Agriculture:
Tariffs on dairy to go within four to eleven years.
The beef tariff (between 12 and 25%) to go within nine years.
Tariffs on live animal exports (10%) to go within four years.
Removal of sheep meat tariffs (12 to 23%) over eight years.
Wine tariffs gone in four years (14 to 20%).
Horticulture tariffs "mostly" gone in four years (up to 30%).
Barley tariff (3%) gone.
Seafood tariffs gone in four years.
Resources and manufacturing:
Tariffs on coking coal gone immediately on the agreement taking effect.
Tariffs on thermal coal (currently 6%) gone in two years.
A bunch of nuisance tariffs on copper and alloys, alumnium oxide, nickel, aluminium waste and other energy products - gone.
Four year phase out on 10% tariffs on pharmaceuticals - including vitamins.
Four year phase out on tariffs on manufactures, like car engines, plastics and centrifuges.
block-time published-time 5.07pm AEST
Free trade agreement - three key issues at a glance
The embargo on details of the China FTA has just been lifted.
I'll walk this through step by step for the remainder of the afternoon, but in this first post I'll cut very quickly to the chase.
This deal is a two stage process : there are concrete agreements now, and then there's a mechanism to pursue the issues that could not be resolved now.
In the too hard basket:
The screening thresholds for investment by Chinese state owned enterprises. As I flagged on the live blog earlier today, the Chinese wanted a better deal. Australia rebuffed that request for now. All investment by Chinese state owned enterprises will be screened by the Foreign Investment Review Board. So the current arrangements remain in place.
Also left out of the FTA: wool, oil seeds, cotton, sugar and rice. No progress in this free trade agreement. It will be interesting to get play back from the Nationals and the farmers federation about that.
Not in the too hard basket, but likely to be a serious flash point:
There is an investor state dispute clause. A safe prediction: this will be very controversial.
block-time published-time 4.54pm AEST
Decoding the Xi address
Just before we get into the virtual FTA - a couple of very quick thoughts on that Xi speech. It was a very interesting outing.
If we cut through all the proverbs and the people-to-people links (Lord the Chinese love that phrase), Xi wanted to send a few clear messages.
Here are the messages.
We are the big guy in Asia. You need not be afraid of us, because our intentions are peaceful. We have known war, and we don't want to visit that horror on others.
But take note: we are the big guy in Asia. We are the Asia-Pacific power. We will assert our rise in the region, and we will do it on our own terms.
It's a message of course for America and for the world - and an interesting follow on from the climate agreement Xi struck with America last week, and president Obama's contributions over the past few days.
The grown ups, the great contemporary powers, are speaking in Australia, and over the heads of Australia.
block-time published-time 4.44pm AEST
This falls in the category of deep Bowers dreaming.
Interesting PUP/Labor/Greens/LNP seating arrangements in the House of Reps for Xi's speech. (Apologies to @mpbowers ). pic.twitter.com/5HsfBFCic5
- Alice Workman (@workmanalice) November 17, 2014
But I like it.
block-time published-time 4.40pm AEST
Twitter is telling me that Xi's look at the sun quote is from Helen Keller.
A well known Austrian. Sorry, that's the Arnie joke.
block-time published-time 4.39pm AEST
Here's the chamber, from Mike Bowers.
The President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping addresses a special joint sitting of the House of Representatives in Parliament House Canberra this afternoon, Monday 17th November 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia Prime Minister Tony Abbott addresses a special joint sitting of the house for the President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping Parliament House Canberra this afternoon, Monday 17th November 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia Opposition Leader Bill Shorten addresses a special joint sitting of the house to hear an address for the President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping Parliament House Canberra this afternoon, Monday 17th November 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 4.34pm AEST
The parliamentarians like the rock and the wall.
Warmer applause marks the conclusion of the Xi address. I swear looking at the sun makes you go blind. I'm digging in behind that.
block-time published-time 4.30pm AEST
Now we are deep cross over dreaming.
We are the rock. China is the wall.
Xi:
As the Chinese saying goes, true friendship exists only when there is an a binding commitment to pursue common goals. I am confident that with our joint efforts, the friendship between Chinese and Australian people will span over mountains and oceans, such friendship will withstand rain and storm and be a strong and everlasting as the majestic Uluru rock in central Australia, and the Great Wall in northern China.
The Australians often say that those who lose dreaming are lost. As Chinese and Australian people strive to fulfil our respective dreams, let us join hands and work shoulder to shoulder to create a brighter future for China/Australia comprehensive strategic partnership. And enhance peace, stability, and prosperity in the Asia Pacific.
block-time published-time 4.28pm AEST
Xi says China supports Australia's development in our north and China supports Australia's interests in China's development of its frontier west.
Xi:
We should also increase two-way investment and create a fairer and more enabling environment for it.
(I suspect that's code for more beneficial investment rules covering Chinese state owned enterprises. Remember we expect investment by Chinese SOEs to be in the too hard basket when this FTA is unveiled later on.)
block-time published-time 4.22pm AEST
I have never heard of this saying.
Xi:
There is an Australian saying: keep your eyes on the sun and you will not see the shadows.
(I thought if you looked at the sun, you might go blind. I must have been poorly educated.)
Xi:
China and Australia differ in history, culture, social system and stage of development. So it is natural for us to have disagreements on some issues. What is important is that we should keep to the right direction of bilateral relations, talk to each other candidly, seek common ground despite our differences and meet each other halfway. We should respect each other's core interests and major concerns and properly handle our differences.
block-time published-time 4.20pm AEST
This segment of the speech allows Xi to assert its presence in the Asia Pacific. China is an Asian power. China's development allows China to spread the benefits of its progress to neighbours. It's a virtuous cycle, the president says.
The Chinese government is ready to enhance dialogue and cooperation with relevant countries to jointly maintain freedom of navigation and safety of maritime rules, and ensure a maritime order of pies, tranquility and a win/win cooperation. At the same time, the Chinese people will firmly uphold the core interests of China's sovereignty, security and territorial integrity.
He references territorial disputes. Xi contends China doesn't want confrontation.
It is China's long-standing position to address peacefully its disputes with countries determined on territorial sovereignty, through dialogue and consultation. China has settled land boundary issues with 12 out of its 14 neighbours through friendly consultation; and will continue to work in this direction. China sincerely hopes to work with other countries in the region to build a harmonious and a prosperous Asia Pacific.
block-time published-time 4.15pm AEST
Xi invokes an oceans metaphor to describe the goodwill between Beijing and Canberra. He then invokes his governing slogan which I referenced on the live blog this morning - the Chinese dream.
Xi:
We Chinese are striving to achieve the Chinese dream, which is the renewal of the Chinese nation.
Xi says the dream means Beijing will stay committed to socialism with Chinese features.
The Chinese president says some people (he means foreign observers) applaud China's modernisation, some people are apprehensive about China, and others find fault with everything that China does. China is the big guy, Xi says - and invites a big guy response. People aren't sure what the big guy will do.
Xi says he intends to provide some particulars.
First of all China is a peaceful country. China has been through many ordeals, Xi says, and doesn't intend to inflict ordeals on others.
China needs peace. Neither turbulence nor war serves the needs of the Chinese people.
He says all war-like states eventually fall. He says China is on the alert against challenges to peace.
Xi says China's rise presents opportunities to the world.
block-time published-time 4.05pm AEST
Given the flashpoints of the day - just a quick flashback - here were the PUPs arriving for the Xi address.
PUP senators assemble for a special joint sitting of the house to hear an address from the President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping Parliament House Canberra this afternoon, Monday 17th November 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
Cute shot, now back to Xi and people to people exchanges.
block-time published-time 4.03pm AEST
President Xi now rises for his address. He is delighted to be meeting on a sunny day in the southern hemisphere. Through parliament, he extends the good wishes of China to the people of Australia. He congratulates Australia on the success of the G20 summit.
Xi says his first visit was in 1988. The visits have left a great impression. Koalas, fluffy white sheep, the opera house - the expanse of the outback. But Xi says Australia is not all fluffy sheep and resources - it is a country of dynamism and innovation. It is a country that has made many contributions to human progress.
block-time published-time 3.57pm AEST
There was a proverb, but sadly, I've already forgotten it. The Labor leader, fortunately, is deploying his ordinary voice for this address.
Shorten in his welcome for Xi is traversing similar human history ground to Abbott, and also asserting Labor's contribution to the FTA that will be announced this afternoon. He's acknowledging China's rise. Shorten also raises human rights directly but not specifically - he says trade liberalisation and economic propserity has meant progress in this regard. The Labor leader praises China on its ebola response, and he says Labor looks forward to building a clean energy future with China. A bit of none too subtle troling of Abbott.
Shorten:
You are most welcome here, you always will be.
block-time published-time 3.51pm AEST
Abbott rounds out his introduction to Xi by saying humanity has a long journey to make and only one planet to share.
Now it's the Labor leader, Bill Shorten's turn, with the proverbs.
block-time published-time 3.48pm AEST
Abbott is outlining previous trips to Australia by Xi - not as leader, this is his first, but the Australian prime minister notes he is well travelled in this country.
The prime minister also gives a shout out to Gough Whitlam for opening relations with the Peoples Republic. Abbott prods Labor MPs to acknowledge with hear hear. They oblige.
Now we are in to the history of the Chinese in Australia. The human history of Chinese migrants in this country is a human arch to our near north. (That's a Menzies-ism.) Abbott speaks of trade and investment - two way trade is because we have to, investment is because we want to. It's a trust thing. The current level of investment indicates trust and confidence between Canberra and Beijing.
block-time published-time 3.40pm AEST
President Xi Jinping addresses the Australian parliament
With Australian parliamentarians duly gathered, the special guest is making his way into the House of Representatives. The applause is warm, not rapturous.
The prime minister makes the introduction.
Tony Abbott:
It is a joy to have friends come from afar.
(I might be imagining it, but the prime minister has adopted a slightly sing song voice.)
block-time published-time 3.34pm AEST
Here are the division bells, the address from Xi Jinping is coming up very shortly.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 3.34pm AEST
block-time published-time 3.23pm AEST
Relax.
Australian Governor General Peter Cosgrove (R) stands with China's President Xi Jinping and his wife Peng Liyuan, as she holds a wombat in the grounds of Government House on November 17, 2014 in Canberra, Australia. Photograph: Pool/Getty Images
The wombat has landed.
block-time published-time 3.18pm AEST
Let's take stock quickly before we enter the serious, business end of the afternoon.
Right now, reporters are down in a background briefing about the declaration of intent, or as Xinhua would have it, the virtual free trade agreement. (I'm not, obviously. I'm here, talking to all of you. When I'm permitted to talk to you about the agreement that dare not speak its name, I will.)
The chamber is gearing up for the special address very shortly by Xi Jinping. That's in about fifteen minutes. Refresh your beverage of choice. I'm very interested to hear the pitch from the Chinese leader.
block-time published-time 3.06pm AEST
To the relief of most everyone, further questions have been placed on the notice paper.
Look at this glorious image. Some segue back to China day, Mr Bowers. Blessings.
Chinese flag out the front of Parliament House this afternoon, Monday 17th November 2014 Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 3.00pm AEST
Palmer on Lambie: you've got to try to sort out problems, not throw them to the wolves
The defence minister David Johnston is telling the senate that the ADF pay offer in no way represents the value the government places on the defence forces. A tough line to sell, that, but he's doing his darndest.
Meanwhile, regular Politics Live folks know my colleague Daniel Hurst generally leaves no stone unturned. He's just back from collaring Clive Palmer in the corridor. Things, as we know, are tense in the PUP kennel - courtesy of that ADF pay issue and other tetchy micro party stuff.
Here's Daniel:
Clive Palmer has signalled he is not about to ask Jacqui Lambie to quit the Palmer United Party. Asked if PUP had an irreconcilable difference with Lambie, Palmer told Guardian Australia:
She hasn't resigned from the party ... she's indicated she doesn't want to resign ... I think when you've got people that work with you or anywhere having problems you've got to try to sort out their problems not throw them to the wolves ... We'll try to help anyone who needs assistance. I think she needs some assistance from us and we're prepared to help.
Palmer said Lambie was "right" in raising concerns over the inadequate defence pay deal, but "of course there are a lot of other things important for Australia too" so a blanket vote against all legislation was the wrong approach.
We vote for things on their merits; Senator Lazarus does and so does Dio Wang.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 3.23pm AEST
block-time published-time 2.51pm AEST
The context for the great lady doing great things in Europe was a question from Labor about the Coalition cutting funds to NICTA - that research centre Merkel visted this morning.
Labor's Kim Carr thought this eventuality somewhat unfortunate. Abetz thought the unfortunateness Carr's fault.
block-time published-time 2.48pm AEST
A great lady doing great things, in Europe.
German Chancellor, Angela Merkel is the 2014 guest speaker for the Lowy Institute for International Policy on November 17, 2014 in Sydney, Australia. Photograph: Lisa Maree Williams/Getty Images
block-time published-time 2.44pm AEST
A great lady, who is doing great things, especially in Europe.
Eric Abetz, on German chancellor Angela Merkel.
(Here's your hat, Angela, what's your hurry?)
block-time published-time 2.37pm AEST
The once Democratic Labour Party senator John Madigan (now independent) - if I'm not mistaken - would like more tariffs, not less. Madigan wants to know what percentage of Chinese exports to Australia have zero tariffs. The question is to the finance minister, Mathias Cormann, who clearly has no idea. He says all will be revealed in good time.
Madigan:
It's a pretty simple question. Surely to God the government knows that.
Cormann:
I'm only the minister representing the minister for trade.
I'd pay Cormann that - he is the minister representing, not the man with the brief.
But a bit more worrying that he can't answer the next question, which is what percentage of investment in Australia comes from private Chinese companies as opposed to state owned enterprises.
Cormann doesn't know that either. He's taking it on notice.
block-time published-time 2.28pm AEST
Greens leader Christine Milne would like to know whether the Coalition still intends to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, given the CEFC was being held up as a clean green virtue by Tony Abbott during the G20-stravaganza. Is it facing the axe, or was the prime minister lying to world leaders?
Senate president Parry wants lying off the table. Milne takes lying off the table but stands by the question.
A bad fumble from Abetz. He initially tells the senate that the Coalition will not axe the CEFC. That's news to everyone.
Abetz corrects.
Mr president, our policy remains.
block-time published-time 2.18pm AEST
Abetz gets a question on the US/China deal to curb emissions. Oh, that old thing, Abetz says. Australia is doing. Others are talking.
Will we make a contribution to the green climate fund? No, Abetz says. Well not now, anyway, is the rationale.
block-time published-time 2.13pm AEST
Eric Abetz thinks there's another question today - not what's in the deal, but will Labor remain slaves to their perverse protectionist philosophy?
block-time published-time 2.08pm AEST
Question time
It being 2pm, the senate is rolling over now to Question Time.
Labor wants detail on the FTA. The Coalition is not intending to humour that request.
Labor's senate leader and trade spokeswoman, Penny Wong is wanting to poke the Nationals. Are the agricultural commodities wheat, sugar and cotton out - and if that's right, when were the Nationals informed?
Government senate leader Eric Abetz:
Is everything we wanted in the agreement? No, it's not.
He says trade pacts are about give and take.
Wong wants to know why the media can be backgrounded about the deal but the senate can't be informed about the deal before it is inked. What's up with that?
Abetz:
Will we release it beforehand? Of course not. There's an established practice here.
block-time published-time 1.51pm AEST
It's official.
We have virtual agreement.
#BREAKING : China, Australia announce virtual conclusion of FTA negotiations
- China Xinhua News (@XHNews) November 17, 2014
block-time published-time 1.51pm AEST
The Greens meanwhile are on a rare unity ticket with Alan Jones. This deal (which we haven't yet seen) doesn't pass the pub test - the assessment of Peter Whish Wilson, Greens trade spokesman.
block-time published-time 1.47pm AEST
Meanwhile, back at the pomp.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (C) receives a ceremonial welcome on the lawns of Government House in Canberra, Australia, 17 November 2014. Xi Jinping, who attended the G20 Leaders Summit in Brisbane, will be delivering an address to the Australian parliament on 17 November. Photograph: LUKAS COCH/EPA Chinese President Xi Jinping receives a ceremonial welcome on the lawns of Government House Photograph: LUKAS COCH/AAPIMAGE
block-time published-time 1.44pm AEST
How many officials does it take to get a declaration of intent?
Chinese President Xi Jinping during a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Tony Abbott in Parliament House, Canberra, Monday, Nov. 17, 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 1.37pm AEST
Given we will shortly know what we know regarding the China free trade deal - it's pointless to speculate this late in the game. It will be odd, however, if this looming declaration of intent shifts many of the most contentious issues off for further work. There have been various speculative reports pointing to this eventuality over the past week or so, that this trade pact will be work in progress.
What, then, are we welcoming?
block-time published-time 1.18pm AEST
I have noted it but I'll note it again, lest it get lost in the zinger wash.
Senator Lambie is emotional today. She's obviously under considerable pressure.
block-time published-time 1.08pm AEST
Gold stamp to Shane Bazzi.
Signs, symbols and portents.
She's not wearing her @PalmerUtdParty yellow scarf today RT @mpbowers Senator Lambie #senate@GuardianAus@murpharoopic.twitter.com/gD21MEUmuL
- Shane Bazzi (@shanebazzi) November 17, 2014
Lambie right now is engaged in a stand-off with Cory Bernardi. Bernardi is in the chair in the senate, presiding. Lambie is persisting in today's tactic, which is give the same speech about ADF pay in every legislative debate.
Given the subject to hand is actually sports doping, Bernardi would like Lambie to address her remarks to the substance of the issue. Lambie ignores him, persisting in her moving monologue. Green Richard di Natale steps in to help Bernardi, because that's how we are rolling, today. Sensing the growing absurdity of this sit com casting, Lambie gives way.
Senator Richard Di Natale takes a point of order on relevance to the bill being debated which resulted in senator Lambie giving up trying to read emails from serving defence members to the senate chamber this afternoon in Parliament House, Canberra, Monday 17th November 2014 Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.20pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.55pm AEST
Politics, this lunchtime
Here's our crusader, Jacqui Lambie. In the back of Mike's shot, you'll see her chief of staff, Rob Messenger - the chap booted from the PUP by Clive Palmer last week. All rather unseemly - the PUP wars.
Senator Jacqui Lambie speaks in the senate chamber this morning, in Parliament House, Canberra, Monday 17th November 2014 Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
But let's keep the blogue bus rolling by stopping to make sure that we are all fully on top of the morning in politics. Canberra, this Monday.
Thus far:
The G20 read out was either shocker or salvation for Tony Abbott, or possibly both, depending on which version of events you consumed.
After a challenging weekend, the prime minister sought a more orderly start to the morning by seeking a fireside chat with Alan Jones - or perhaps Alan sought to dial up an otherwise dull Monday by hyperventilating at the prime minister - in any case, regardless of who sought out whom, it was character forming fifteen minutes for Tony Abbott, who in no particular order, failed the pub test; could not buy a coal mine in China; had not spruiked coal and other suitably carbon intensive energy options enough; had not managed to hold off the awful French in Brisvegas; had not banned wind farms; had not king hit Barack Obama ; had not produced a register of foreign investment in farmland.
Chinese president Xi Jinping arrived, with cheersquad, and pen, to sign a declaration of intent on a free trade agreement.
In Sydney, the German chancellor Angela Merkel spoke about post war European diplomacy; about Russia's departure from the norms of post war European diplomacy - and she urged American security forces to try another line when it came to understanding the political class in Berlin. Don't tap the phone, take us to dinner.
PUP renegade Jacqui Lambie did everything possible to be noticed. Breaking.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.40pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.31pm AEST
I should have mentioned this before but got caught in my various wave jumping(s) - NICTA (visited this morning by Chancellor Merkel ) got its funding cut in the May budget.
Awks.
block-time published-time 12.24pm AEST
If you want to know what we think, don't tap our phone, take us to dinner: Merkel
Q: I'm going to ask a final question. You may remember candidate Barack Obama visiting Berlin in 2008 and one of the things he said then was "true partnership and true progress requires allies who will listen to each other." It turns out in the case of Germany, the National Security Agency took his comment literally as you found out. How should western countries strike a balance between on the one hand collecting the intelligence that guarantees our security and on the other hand not engaging in overzealousness that damages important relationships with friends?
Merkel says different countries approach this issue differently.
However.
There's one view I don't share and this is a disagreement with the United States.
The political class in Berlin doesn't need to be supervised and monitored by security services to know what they're thinking. Go for dinner or lunch with them or read the papers and you know 99.9% of what they actually think.
block-time published-time 12.19pm AEST
No FTA text today - just a declaration of intent
One of those cross currents that are inevitable on a day like today.
FTA: an update
Tony Abbott has just issued a statement that indicates the FTA negotiations are now complete. But it seems clear that there won't be a finalised text today. The Abbott statement says today, the two governments will sign a declaration of intent - a precursor to a legal text. So no settled text in other words. The same thing happened with Japan and Korea - the broad parameters, fine print to follow. (Shh, don't tell Alan.)
Back now to Merkel.
The questions have been firing away. Is the German chancellor concerned about the UK drifting away from Europe?
(Yes.)
Merkel:
I'm doing everything I can in order for the UK to remain a member of the European Union for very good German reasons. What the British decide to do is something they have to decide for themselves and they certainly will not listen to what others have to say on this, but it is most important for us to have the United Kingdom in the union.
How about the rise of China? Merkel says China is intent on entering a new and glorious period in history. How the rise of China squares with American strategic interests is the key to the thing.
Step-by-step they want to become an international, global player. The Chinese-American relationship also is of tremendous importance in this respect.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.33pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.00pm AEST
Merkel is moving now to questions at the Lowy Institute. Before the lecture this morning, the chancellor made a visit to NICTA - Australia's Information and Communications Technology Research Centre of Excellence. Thanks to Annie O'Rourke for this picture.
@murpharoo Angela Merkel enjoying a tour of @NICTA earlier this morning pic.twitter.com/tRmUeqo6d4
- Annie O'Rourke (@89oEast) November 17, 2014
First question to the chancellor is how do we influence Vladimir Putin, given that the sanctions seem only to have driven up his popularity?
Q: What is the best combination of carrots and sticks to influence Mr Putin?
Merkel:
We need to have the necessary patience for an uphill battle.
We have to prove that we've learned something from the past. And since you cannot make any safe predictions as to the future, it's not all that easy to find the right course of action. We know that you cannot and should not be too peaceful. You should take it seriously when somebody sort of threatens you, or keep a very close eye on the actions of others, and we know that even small conflicts may very well turn into bigger complications very quickly.
She says the EU needs to stand together and stand with the US.
The biggest danger is that we allow ourselves to be separate, to be divided, that a wedge will be driven between us. So it was in Europe and in the world, so it was so important for the US and Europe to pursue the same course, for a very long time.
block-time published-time 11.52am AEST
Merkel moves from diplomacy to economic consolidation after the global financial crisis, and to geopolitical security. The German chancellor says Europe needs structural reform and Europe needs to go for growth. In terms of security, Europe has an interest in seeing the states of Asia rise peacefully and without any sort of sharp ruptures. Merkel lists the current challenges before the world: Ukraine, the Middle Eastern conflagration, ebola. She says economic integration imposes broader obligations - and like minded countries need to work together.
Merkel:
Globalisation is no longer merely an economic phenomenon. It has turned all of us into neighbours. More and more countries see themselves facing the same kind of challenges and for Europe and Germany, it's most important to have a partner in Australia here in this Asia Pacific region that shares the same values that we have.
Climate change too. (Here's looking at you, Tony.)
If we do not put a brake on climate change, it will have devastating consequences for all of us, there will be more storms, there will be more heat and catastrophes more doubts, there will be a rising sea levels an increasing floods. Climate change knows no borders. It will not stop before the Pacific Islands and the whole of the international community here has to shoulder a responsibility to bring about a sustainable development.
Our ambition is to come for - to - an agreement that is binding for all states. Only in this way can global warming be actually limited to 2 degrees celsius. So all countries are called upon to announce their national contributions for this world climate agreement until the first quarter of 2015 at the very latest. Only in this way will we be able to prepare the conference in Paris in an appropriate way and be able to achieve a substantial result there.
block-time published-time 11.38am AEST
The German chancellor Angela Merkel has stepped up at the Lowy Institute in Sydney. The audience have their translation head sets on. Merkel's address this morning is about European diplomacy - the structures imposed after two world wars to promote consensus. Shifting power struggles and alliances, she says, have been replaced by the rule of law. There are, sadly, exceptions. The chancellor is looking at you, Vladimir.
Merkel:
And yet we have to see that in Europe too there are still forces that refuse to accept the concept of mutual respect and of settling conflicts with democratic and legal means. Those that put the right of the stronger before the right of the strength of the law. And this is exactly what happened with the annexation of the Crimea, it is a clear violation of international law and that was carried out by Russia at the beginning of this year. Russia in this way violates territorial integrity and the sovereignty of Ukraine as a state, a neighbouring state is labelled and seen as part of a sphere of influence. After the horror of two world wars and the end of the Cold War, this caused the whole of the European peaceful order into question.
block-time published-time 11.30am AEST
Mike Bowers has been down shooting pool pictures for the Xi visit. Here's a sample.
Might be just me but I did a small recoil at the grip and grin. More like a grimace from the prime minister.
The President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping arrives at a bi-lateral meeting with Prime Minister Tony Abbott in Parliament House Canberra this morning, Monday 17th November 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
Well, hello there.
The President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping arrives at a bi-lateral meeting with Prime Minister Tony Abbott in Parliament House Canberra this morning, Monday 17th November 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 11.24am AEST
Some pictures now. Earlier I mentioned there were duelling protesters down the front waiting for president Xi.
Let's call this officialdom versus dissent, a case study.
Protesters gather outside Parliament House in Canberra, Monday, Nov. 17, 2014. The Chinese President Xi Jinping, who attended the G20 Leaders Summit in Brisbane, will be delivering an address to the Australian parliament today. Photograph: ALAN PORRITT/AAPIMAGE
block-time published-time 11.18am AEST
Meanwhile, over in the senate, the sometime/kinda/sorta PUP senator Jacqui Lambie is wedged deep in struggle street. She's voting against everything until the diggers get a better pay rise. I think. The sharp end is a bit lost on the various evils inflicted on the populace by everyone apart from Lambie.
Ah, yes, that is the point. She's calling for a cross bench revolution - don't vote for anything until the Coalition revokes its disgusting pay offer. (Suck on that Cliev.)
Lambie is trembling with rage. She either has the flu or she's about to burst into tears.
block-time published-time 11.11am AEST
Aren't we all, Intern.
I'm excited. #LowyLecture#Lowypic.twitter.com/CL63cx5Svh
- ABC News Intern (@ABCnewsIntern) November 17, 2014
block-time published-time 11.09am AEST
Meanwhile, in another venue, in another city, with considerably less contention.
Appropriately orderly and efficient queue for #AngelaMerkel@murpharoo She speaking in 45 mins pic.twitter.com/B1mluNBJy6
- Michael Safi (@safimichael) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 11.08am AEST
Looking past Alan's faux pub test to the practical sensitivities
To organising principles.
Whether you buy Alan's pub test or not, the broadcaster's encounter with the prime minister this morning does underscore the point there are political sensitivities around free trade deals in general, and this free trade deal in particular.
Jones spent time on Chinese investment in his interview today with Abbott. We of course don't yet have the detail associated with this trade pact, but the non-official official word for some time has been that China will get the same deal as the United States, Korea and Japan. That means the investment threshold attracting scrutiny by the Foreign Investment Review Board (Firb) will be increased from $248m to $1bn. That's for private investment. Folks who follow these debates closely will know that the bulk of in-bound investment from China is from state owned enterprises (SOEs), not from private firms. The early word from Camp Abbott had been that SOEs would get a better deal in this FTA, essentially because Beijing wanted a better deal. But more recent reports suggest that's not the case. Currently all SOE investment is screened by Firb.
In no particular order, these are some of the political sensitivities related to an FTA with China:
Foreign investment regulations, particularly in farmland and agri-businesses (because the National party gets very antsy about this issue)
People movement and temporary migration provisions (because the ALP and the union movement are very antsy about this issue)
Copyright and predatory pricing (because business is very antsy about the propsect of China dumping goods in Australia below cost)
Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions (because these are the new battlefront in the age old trade liberalisation versus sovereignty argument)
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.13am AEST
block-time published-time 10.46am AEST
As Alan performances go, that one was only four stars. He did leave some headroom there. It is helpful though, as an organising principle. More of that shortly.
Live pictures coming through now of president Xi coming in to the prime minister's office. The senate is also sitting, taking care of business. One of the social services bills is being debated.
block-time published-time 10.30am AEST
Alan is refusing to desist from the fast breathing.
This is a dog, this China deal. A dawg.
Abbott:
Alan, look, many voters disagree with many things governments do.
Alan has achieved his objective and is now bored. He dismisses the prime minister who he's sure is very busy and has things to do. Alan always has things to do, obviously. Let the record show, that so dismissed, the prime minister moved on.
block-time published-time 10.25am AEST
Jones:
I've had this out with Andrew Robb, he thinks I'm a nutter.
The prime minister :
Well I'm not sure he does.
He can respectfully disagree without thinking people are nutters.
block-time published-time 10.23am AEST
Jones points out that Abbott can't buy a coal mine in China either. Another aspiration dashed.
Abbott points out to Alan that in a communist regime, ownership is actually complex business.
Alan doesn't want reason cluttering up this conversation.
Jones:
PM you don't have a mandate for this!
Actually, it was [sharp intake of breath] PM, YOU DON'T HAVE A MANDATE FOR THIS.
block-time published-time 10.16am AEST
Back now to the pub test, because Alan hasn't finished with that.
This FTA with China, that's failed the pub test. They aren't swallowing this in the pubs, Alan says.
Jones:
Q: To win an election, you have to pass the pub test. Now I can tell you the board here this morning is in meltdown on the open line. Why can't we see this free trade agreement?
Abbott, (periodically):
Uh huh.
Jones:
Q: China is giving us nothing. The dairy farms are owned by China. By this time next week who is going to own little Tasmania?
Abbott:
Well, Alan..
Jones:
Q: Can Tony Abbott buy a farm in China?
Abbott:
Err..
Jones:
Q: The answer is no.
block-time published-time 10.09am AEST
Alan never lets incoherence blunt his natural vehemence. Jones tells the prime minister global warming is a hoax and wind turbines are a fake.
Jones:
Q: Doesn't economic growth start at home?
Abbott:
Well, it does Alan.
(After a suitable interval.)
Abbott:
I can't work miracles Alan.
Jones wants to know why a wind turbine manufacturer from Qatar gets a subsidy and the working stiff doesn't get a subsidy. He wants to know why there isn't more coal worship. The prime minister points out he has been engaged in coal worship. Yes, but why isn't that taking off, Alan wonders. The left and the Abbott haters, that's why. And that meaningless climate agreement Barack Obama signed with President Xi. That's why. The eternal why.
block-time published-time 9.59am AEST
Alan Jones to Tony Abbott: you don't pass the pub test
Alan is evidently unhappy that we spent a whole lot of money on a summit in Brisbane that achieved nothing.
The prime minister is unhappy that he chose Jones for this morning's fireside chat because this interview is not going to plan and we are only five minutes in.
Jones declares that Abbott - a person he's known for thousands of years - does not pass the pub test.
Neither does anything that comes out of his mouth.
Jones:
People listening to you, because my real concern here is a lot of this does not pass the pub test. And I suppose as someone who has known you for thousands of years - you don't pass the pub test on some of these things too.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.00am AEST
block-time published-time 9.51am AEST
I'll come back to specific FTA issues, but first, back to Alan. I've only just hit the opening editorial set up from Jones, but it's clear already this one's a keeper. This will be full frontal populism.
Jones suggests that the G20 meeting in Brisbane is the only time in history where a coherent agenda has been presented. Only time in history, because let's face it, the rest of the world is completely incompetent.
Jones:
France - no leadership at all.
Hopeless.
Gems to follow, very shortly.
block-time published-time 9.42am AEST
One useful thing to wrap our mind around before things get brisk today is - who is our visitor? Where does he sit on the spectrum of Chinese leadership?
The Xi slogan in China has been "Chinese dream." Analysts are still coming to terms with what that means in a practical sense, but much of the reporting about China's leader suggests he's a nationalist.
Here are some helpful readings.
From the New York Times : Xi as conservative, leftist, nationalist.
Mr. Xi's hard line has disappointed Chinese liberals, some of whom once hailed his rise to power as an opportunity to push for political change after a long period of stagnation. Instead, Mr. Xi has signaled a shift to a more conservative, traditional leftist stance with his "rectification" campaign to ensure discipline and conspicuous attempts to defend the legacy of Mao Zedong.
From The Economist: on Xi's "Chinese dream" - a creatively ambiguous marker of generational change
Flanked by six dour-looking, dark-clad colleagues from the Politburo's standing committee, Mr Xi told a gaggle of press and museum workers that the "greatest Chinese dream" was the "great revival of the Chinese nation". Nationalists see their own dreams validated. To them the tall and portly Mr Xi represents a new vigour in Chinese politics after Mr Hu's studied greyness. His talk of China's revival plays to their sense that China has a rightful place at the top of the global pecking-order.
block-time published-time 9.29am AEST
There is much pomp planned of course for Xi Jinping's visit to Canberra today.
For folks who like to plan, and have a low tolerance for pomp - the business end of today is this afternoon rather than this morning. The Chinese president's address to parliament is mid afternoon, 3.35pm; as is the press conference with Tony Abbott, which is expected at 4.30pm. I'm glad of the slow burn - it means more time to set up the substance of the day properly - a rare luxury in this format.
block-time published-time 9.15am AEST
Speaking of unhappy, as I mentioned to you earlier, Sydney broadcaster Alan Jones sounded distinctly unhappy about the China FTA in the tail end of the interview with the prime minister that I referenced first up on Politics Live this morning. Frequent listeners to Jones would not be shocked by that development.
I'll chase up more of that when I can.
Down the front of parliament house right now the official Chinese welcoming party - those folks who turned up 'spontaneously' at the airport to welcome president Xi last night - are facing off against a bunch of Falun Gong folks.
The sanctioned welcomers have a talent for placing themselves in the live TV pictures.
block-time published-time 8.52am AEST
Back to hosing out the venue after the G20.
Oh dear. Safe to conclude either:
1. The prime minister is unhappy that the US president Barack Obama brought climate change to Brisbane when he was meant to be fascinated by jobs and growth; or
2. The Australian's Greg Sheridan is unhappy on the prime minister's behalf.
Greg Sheridan:
It's a strange way to treat a friend but it is all of a piece, sadly, with Obama's presidential style, especially as the power ebbs from him in the dying days of his reign. The damage may not be long-lasting because the US president's remarks bore little relation to anything he can deliver or will do. Instead, they reprise the most ineffably capricious and inconsequential moments in the Obama presidency: grand gestures, soaring visions, which never actually get implemented in the real world. Obama went out of his way to imply, in the most politically damaging fashion he could, that Australia's efforts on climate change were negligible and compared poorly with America's. In fact, Australia's efforts on greenhouse gas reduction are almost identical with those of the US.
block-time published-time 8.40am AEST
Poor old Barnaby can't share a word, but here's the FTA lowdown courtesy of the toplines various secret squirrels have shared with various scribes.
The Australian tells usTony Abbott has won a "dramatic increase in market access for Australian farmers, services and manufacturers in a trade deal worth at least $18 billion over a decade that maintains full scrutiny of investments by Chinese state-owned enterprises."
The Australian Financial Review tells us service providers "have won unprecedented access to Chinese markets under the Australia-China free trade agreement, which will liberate more than 90% of Australian exports from tariffs over the next four years."
We'll tease out various FTA issues here - policy issues, and political implications and consequences - throughout the day.
block-time published-time 8.17am AEST
The agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce is on the ABC's AM program, speaking about the looming free trade agreement that will be unveiled this afternoon.
Joyce informs his host Chris Uhlmann he has the FTA text in front of him, but he can't possibly tell us what it says. Joyce invokes a folksy but not terribly conprehensible Christmas tree analogy. Then he tells the truth. He says if he spills the beans, it's back to the backbench for Barnaby. Or perhaps he'll be quarantined at the airport as an ebola risk. Happy days. There's no B in team.
block-time published-time 8.09am AEST
Good morning to Mr Bowers, who was at RAAF Fairbairn last night to welcome president Xi Jinping to the Australian capital.
With a few folks who just spontaneously turned up with very big flags.
Supporters outnumbered the protestors for arrival of the President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping and his wife Madam Peng Liyuan at RAAF Fairbairn in Canberra this evening, Sunday 16th November 2014. Photograph by Mike Bowers Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia The President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping arrives with his wife Mada, Peng Liyuan at RAAF Fairfairn in Canberra. Sunday 16th November 2014. Photograph by Mike Bowers Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 7.57am AEST
Good morning and welcome to the Monday after the Friday, Saturday and Sunday before. In Brisbane they are packing up the party pies and the cameo koalas and the shirtfronts. Australian politics and the G20 folks who just don't want to go home yet are currently making their way to Canberra because too much summiting is barely enough.
It's one of those mornings where the events of the past few days are in the eye of the beholder.
If you glance at The Courier Mail, Tony Abbott wasn't shirtfronted by the US president over climate change (which was the weekend consensus elsewhere) - Tony was actually the shirtfronter of the US president.
Bad Barack. Bad, bad Barack.
" @wrongdorey : @couriermailpic.twitter.com/BICmfxjPMd " Am I reading this right? Abbott didn't shirtfront Putin, but he did yell at Obama?
- George Megalogenis (@GMegalogenis) November 16, 2014
But if you read the LA Times, the prime minister's performance at the G20 was more Clearasil than shirtfont.
Occasionally, there's an awkward, pimply youth moment so embarrassing that it does sting. Like when 19 of the world's most important leaders visit for a global summit and prime minister Tony Abbott opens their retreat Saturday with a whinge (Aussie for whine) about his doomed efforts to get his fellow Australians to pay $7 to see a doctor.
Moving forward.
The prime minister has stopped by 2GB this morning to wrap up the G20 weekend and point triumphantly forward (I've just caught the tail end of this conversation, so sadly I've missed the advertorial for digestion aids that normally sets up a prime ministerial interview) - Alan Jones seems in a terrible tizz about the free trade deal with China.
Alan's voice has climbed several octaves.
Jones:
It's going to be signed before we see it!
(Well, yes, Alan. That's how things tends to go: secret until public. Fortunately the government has 'helped' by leaking much of the bits and pieces.) The prime minister sounds like you sound when you've clenched your jaw in order to prevent unseemly words escaping from your lips.
It's combat everywhere, actually. The environment minister Greg Hunt is on ABC Radio National Breakfast dressing down host Fran Kelly for climate change related thought crimes. Very touchy.
Anyway, strap on your bike helmets. It's going to be a lively day. We will wind, elegantly, out of Brisbane, and leap forward with Beijing. The lawn mowers are whirring downstairs in preparation for today's visit to Canberra by president Xi Jinping. Various pomps and circumstances will be followed by signatures on a premable to a bilateral free trade pact. I'll be covering all that live.
The Politics Live thread is open for your business. I'll fire up the Twits in a moment, and you can reach me there @murpharoo and the man with the lens @mpbowers
LOAD-DATE: November 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
272 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 17, 2014 Monday 6:07 AM GMT
Chinese president Xi Jinping addresses Australian parliament - politics live;
With the G20 now done and dusted, MPs gather in Canberra for a special sitting of the parliament. China's president Xi Jinping will address the parliament, and ink a new free trade deal with Canberra. All the developments, live
BYLINE: Katharine Murphy
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 7941 words
block-time published-time 5.07pm AEST
Free trade agreement - three key issues at a glance
The embargo on details of the China FTA has just been lifted.
I'll walk this through step by step for the remainder of the afternoon, but in this first post I'll cut very quickly to the chase.
This deal is a two stage process : there are concrete agreements now, and then there's a mechanism to pursue the issues that could not be resolved now.
In the too hard basket:
The screening thresholds for investment by Chinese state owned enterprises. As I flagged on the live blog earlier today, the Chinese wanted a better deal. Australia rebuffed that request for now. All investment by Chinese state owned enterprises will be screened by the Foreign Investment Review Board. So the current arrangements remain in place.
Also left out of the FTA: wool, oil seeds, cotton, sugar and rice. No progress in this free trade agreement. It will be interesting to get play back from the Nationals and the farmers federation about that.
Not in the too hard basket, but likely to be a serious flash point:
There is an investor state dispute clause. A safe prediction: this will be very controversial.
block-time published-time 4.54pm AEST
Decoding the Xi address
Just before we get into the virtual FTA - a couple of very quick thoughts on that Xi speech. It was a very interesting outing.
If we cut through all the proverbs and the people-to-people links (Lord the Chinese love that phrase), Xi wanted to send a few clear messages.
Here are the messages.
We are the big guy in Asia. You need not be afraid of us, because our intentions are peaceful. We have known war, and we don't want to visit that horror on others.
But take note: we are the big guy in Asia. We are the Asia-Pacific power. We will assert our rise in the region, and we will do it on our own terms.
It's a message of course for America and for the world - and an interesting follow on from the climate agreement Xi struck with America last week, and president Obama's contributions over the past few days.
The grown ups, the great contemporary powers, are speaking in Australia, and over the heads of Australia.
block-time published-time 4.44pm AEST
This falls in the category of deep Bowers dreaming.
Interesting PUP/Labor/Greens/LNP seating arrangements in the House of Reps for Xi's speech. (Apologies to @mpbowers ). pic.twitter.com/5HsfBFCic5
- Alice Workman (@workmanalice) November 17, 2014
But I like it.
block-time published-time 4.40pm AEST
Twitter is telling me that Xi's look at the sun quote is from Helen Keller.
A well known Austrian. Sorry, that's the Arnie joke.
block-time published-time 4.39pm AEST
Here's the chamber, from Mike Bowers.
The President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping addresses a special joint sitting of the House of Representatives in Parliament House Canberra this afternoon, Monday 17th November 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia Prime Minister Tony Abbott addresses a special joint sitting of the house for the President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping Parliament House Canberra this afternoon, Monday 17th November 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia Opposition Leader Bill Shorten addresses a special joint sitting of the house to hear an address for the President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping Parliament House Canberra this afternoon, Monday 17th November 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 4.34pm AEST
The parliamentarians like the rock and the wall.
Warmer applause marks the conclusion of the Xi address. I swear looking at the sun makes you go blind. I'm digging in behind that.
block-time published-time 4.30pm AEST
Now we are deep cross over dreaming.
We are the rock. China is the wall.
Xi:
As the Chinese saying goes, true friendship exists only when there is an a binding commitment to pursue common goals. I am confident that with our joint efforts, the friendship between Chinese and Australian people will span over mountains and oceans, such friendship will withstand rain and storm and be a strong and everlasting as the majestic Uluru rock in central Australia, and the Great Wall in northern China.
The Australians often say that those who lose dreaming are lost. As Chinese and Australian people strive to fulfil our respective dreams, let us join hands and work shoulder to shoulder to create a brighter future for China/Australia comprehensive strategic partnership. And enhance peace, stability, and prosperity in the Asia Pacific.
block-time published-time 4.28pm AEST
Xi says China supports Australia's development in our north and China supports Australia's interests in China's development of its frontier west.
Xi:
We should also increase two-way investment and create a fairer and more enabling environment for it.
(I suspect that's code for more beneficial investment rules covering Chinese state owned enterprises. Remember we expect investment by Chinese SOEs to be in the too hard basket when this FTA is unveiled later on.)
block-time published-time 4.22pm AEST
I have never heard of this saying.
Xi:
There is an Australian saying: keep your eyes on the sun and you will not see the shadows.
(I thought if you looked at the sun, you might go blind. I must have been poorly educated.)
Xi:
China and Australia differ in history, culture, social system and stage of development. So it is natural for us to have disagreements on some issues. What is important is that we should keep to the right direction of bilateral relations, talk to each other candidly, seek common ground despite our differences and meet each other halfway. We should respect each other's core interests and major concerns and properly handle our differences.
block-time published-time 4.20pm AEST
This segment of the speech allows Xi to assert its presence in the Asia Pacific. China is an Asian power. China's development allows China to spread the benefits of its progress to neighbours. It's a virtuous cycle, the president says.
The Chinese government is ready to enhance dialogue and cooperation with relevant countries to jointly maintain freedom of navigation and safety of maritime rules, and ensure a maritime order of pies, tranquility and a win/win cooperation. At the same time, the Chinese people will firmly uphold the core interests of China's sovereignty, security and territorial integrity.
He references territorial disputes. Xi contends China doesn't want confrontation.
It is China's long-standing position to address peacefully its disputes with countries determined on territorial sovereignty, through dialogue and consultation. China has settled land boundary issues with 12 out of its 14 neighbours through friendly consultation; and will continue to work in this direction. China sincerely hopes to work with other countries in the region to build a harmonious and a prosperous Asia Pacific.
block-time published-time 4.15pm AEST
Xi invokes an oceans metaphor to describe the goodwill between Beijing and Canberra. He then invokes his governing slogan which I referenced on the live blog this morning - the Chinese dream.
Xi:
We Chinese are striving to achieve the Chinese dream, which is the renewal of the Chinese nation.
Xi says the dream means Beijing will stay committed to socialism with Chinese features.
The Chinese president says some people (he means foreign observers) applaud China's modernisation, some people are apprehensive about China, and others find fault with everything that China does. China is the big guy, Xi says - and invites a big guy response. People aren't sure what the big guy will do.
Xi says he intends to provide some particulars.
First of all China is a peaceful country. China has been through many ordeals, Xi says, and doesn't intend to inflict ordeals on others.
China needs peace. Neither turbulence nor war serves the needs of the Chinese people.
He says all war-like states eventually fall. He says China is on the alert against challenges to peace.
Xi says China's rise presents opportunities to the world.
block-time published-time 4.05pm AEST
Given the flashpoints of the day - just a quick flashback - here were the PUPs arriving for the Xi address.
PUP senators assemble for a special joint sitting of the house to hear an address from the President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping Parliament House Canberra this afternoon, Monday 17th November 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
Cute shot, now back to Xi and people to people exchanges.
block-time published-time 4.03pm AEST
President Xi now rises for his address. He is delighted to be meeting on a sunny day in the southern hemisphere. Through parliament, he extends the good wishes of China to the people of Australia. He congratulates Australia on the success of the G20 summit.
Xi says his first visit was in 1988. The visits have left a great impression. Koalas, fluffy white sheep, the opera house - the expanse of the outback. But Xi says Australia is not all fluffy sheep and resources - it is a country of dynamism and innovation. It is a country that has made many contributions to human progress.
block-time published-time 3.57pm AEST
There was a proverb, but sadly, I've already forgotten it. The Labor leader, fortunately, is deploying his ordinary voice for this address.
Shorten in his welcome for Xi is traversing similar human history ground to Abbott, and also asserting Labor's contribution to the FTA that will be announced this afternoon. He's acknowledging China's rise. Shorten also raises human rights directly but not specifically - he says trade liberalisation and economic propserity has meant progress in this regard. The Labor leader praises China on its ebola response, and he says Labor looks forward to building a clean energy future with China. A bit of none too subtle troling of Abbott.
Shorten:
You are most welcome here, you always will be.
block-time published-time 3.51pm AEST
Abbott rounds out his introduction to Xi by saying humanity has a long journey to make and only one planet to share.
Now it's the Labor leader, Bill Shorten's turn, with the proverbs.
block-time published-time 3.48pm AEST
Abbott is outlining previous trips to Australia by Xi - not as leader, this is his first, but the Australian prime minister notes he is well travelled in this country.
The prime minister also gives a shout out to Gough Whitlam for opening relations with the Peoples Republic. Abbott prods Labor MPs to acknowledge with hear hear. They oblige.
Now we are in to the history of the Chinese in Australia. The human history of Chinese migrants in this country is a human arch to our near north. (That's a Menzies-ism.) Abbott speaks of trade and investment - two way trade is because we have to, investment is because we want to. It's a trust thing. The current level of investment indicates trust and confidence between Canberra and Beijing.
block-time published-time 3.40pm AEST
President Xi Jinping addresses the Australian parliament
With Australian parliamentarians duly gathered, the special guest is making his way into the House of Representatives. The applause is warm, not rapturous.
The prime minister makes the introduction.
Tony Abbott:
It is a joy to have friends come from afar.
(I might be imagining it, but the prime minister has adopted a slightly sing song voice.)
block-time published-time 3.34pm AEST
Here are the division bells, the address from Xi Jinping is coming up very shortly.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 3.34pm AEST
block-time published-time 3.23pm AEST
Relax.
Australian Governor General Peter Cosgrove (R) stands with China's President Xi Jinping and his wife Peng Liyuan, as she holds a wombat in the grounds of Government House on November 17, 2014 in Canberra, Australia. Photograph: Pool/Getty Images
The wombat has landed.
block-time published-time 3.18pm AEST
Let's take stock quickly before we enter the serious, business end of the afternoon.
Right now, reporters are down in a background briefing about the declaration of intent, or as Xinhua would have it, the virtual free trade agreement. (I'm not, obviously. I'm here, talking to all of you. When I'm permitted to talk to you about the agreement that dare not speak its name, I will.)
The chamber is gearing up for the special address very shortly by Xi Jinping. That's in about fifteen minutes. Refresh your beverage of choice. I'm very interested to hear the pitch from the Chinese leader.
block-time published-time 3.06pm AEST
To the relief of most everyone, further questions have been placed on the notice paper.
Look at this glorious image. Some segue back to China day, Mr Bowers. Blessings.
Chinese flag out the front of Parliament House this afternoon, Monday 17th November 2014 Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 3.00pm AEST
Palmer on Lambie: you've got to try to sort out problems, not throw them to the wolves
The defence minister David Johnston is telling the senate that the ADF pay offer in no way represents the value the government places on the defence forces. A tough line to sell, that, but he's doing his darndest.
Meanwhile, regular Politics Live folks know my colleague Daniel Hurst generally leaves no stone unturned. He's just back from collaring Clive Palmer in the corridor. Things, as we know, are tense in the PUP kennel - courtesy of that ADF pay issue and other tetchy micro party stuff.
Here's Daniel:
Clive Palmer has signalled he is not about to ask Jacqui Lambie to quit the Palmer United Party. Asked if PUP had an irreconcilable difference with Lambie, Palmer told Guardian Australia:
She hasn't resigned from the party ... she's indicated she doesn't want to resign ... I think when you've got people that work with you or anywhere having problems you've got to try to sort out their problems not throw them to the wolves ... We'll try to help anyone who needs assistance. I think she needs some assistance from us and we're prepared to help.
Palmer said Lambie was "right" in raising concerns over the inadequate defence pay deal, but "of course there are a lot of other things important for Australia too" so a blanket vote against all legislation was the wrong approach.
We vote for things on their merits; Senator Lazarus does and so does Dio Wang.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 3.23pm AEST
block-time published-time 2.51pm AEST
The context for the great lady doing great things in Europe was a question from Labor about the Coalition cutting funds to NICTA - that research centre Merkel visted this morning.
Labor's Kim Carr thought this eventuality somewhat unfortunate. Abetz thought the unfortunateness Carr's fault.
block-time published-time 2.48pm AEST
A great lady doing great things, in Europe.
German Chancellor, Angela Merkel is the 2014 guest speaker for the Lowy Institute for International Policy on November 17, 2014 in Sydney, Australia. Photograph: Lisa Maree Williams/Getty Images
block-time published-time 2.44pm AEST
A great lady, who is doing great things, especially in Europe.
Eric Abetz, on German chancellor Angela Merkel.
(Here's your hat, Angela, what's your hurry?)
block-time published-time 2.37pm AEST
The once Democratic Labour Party senator John Madigan (now independent) - if I'm not mistaken - would like more tariffs, not less. Madigan wants to know what percentage of Chinese exports to Australia have zero tariffs. The question is to the finance minister, Mathias Cormann, who clearly has no idea. He says all will be revealed in good time.
Madigan:
It's a pretty simple question. Surely to God the government knows that.
Cormann:
I'm only the minister representing the minister for trade.
I'd pay Cormann that - he is the minister representing, not the man with the brief.
But a bit more worrying that he can't answer the next question, which is what percentage of investment in Australia comes from private Chinese companies as opposed to state owned enterprises.
Cormann doesn't know that either. He's taking it on notice.
block-time published-time 2.28pm AEST
Greens leader Christine Milne would like to know whether the Coalition still intends to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, given the CEFC was being held up as a clean green virtue by Tony Abbott during the G20-stravaganza. Is it facing the axe, or was the prime minister lying to world leaders?
Senate president Parry wants lying off the table. Milne takes lying off the table but stands by the question.
A bad fumble from Abetz. He initially tells the senate that the Coalition will not axe the CEFC. That's news to everyone.
Abetz corrects.
Mr president, our policy remains.
block-time published-time 2.18pm AEST
Abetz gets a question on the US/China deal to curb emissions. Oh, that old thing, Abetz says. Australia is doing. Others are talking.
Will we make a contribution to the green climate fund? No, Abetz says. Well not now, anyway, is the rationale.
block-time published-time 2.13pm AEST
Eric Abetz thinks there's another question today - not what's in the deal, but will Labor remain slaves to their perverse protectionist philosophy?
block-time published-time 2.08pm AEST
Question time
It being 2pm, the senate is rolling over now to Question Time.
Labor wants detail on the FTA. The Coalition is not intending to humour that request.
Labor's senate leader and trade spokeswoman, Penny Wong is wanting to poke the Nationals. Are the agricultural commodities wheat, sugar and cotton out - and if that's right, when were the Nationals informed?
Government senate leader Eric Abetz:
Is everything we wanted in the agreement? No, it's not.
He says trade pacts are about give and take.
Wong wants to know why the media can be backgrounded about the deal but the senate can't be informed about the deal before it is inked. What's up with that?
Abetz:
Will we release it beforehand? Of course not. There's an established practice here.
block-time published-time 1.51pm AEST
It's official.
We have virtual agreement.
#BREAKING : China, Australia announce virtual conclusion of FTA negotiations
- China Xinhua News (@XHNews) November 17, 2014
block-time published-time 1.51pm AEST
The Greens meanwhile are on a rare unity ticket with Alan Jones. This deal (which we haven't yet seen) doesn't pass the pub test - the assessment of Peter Whish Wilson, Greens trade spokesman.
block-time published-time 1.47pm AEST
Meanwhile, back at the pomp.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (C) receives a ceremonial welcome on the lawns of Government House in Canberra, Australia, 17 November 2014. Xi Jinping, who attended the G20 Leaders Summit in Brisbane, will be delivering an address to the Australian parliament on 17 November. Photograph: LUKAS COCH/EPA Chinese President Xi Jinping receives a ceremonial welcome on the lawns of Government House Photograph: LUKAS COCH/AAPIMAGE
block-time published-time 1.44pm AEST
How many officials does it take to get a declaration of intent?
Chinese President Xi Jinping during a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Tony Abbott in Parliament House, Canberra, Monday, Nov. 17, 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 1.37pm AEST
Given we will shortly know what we know regarding the China free trade deal - it's pointless to speculate this late in the game. It will be odd, however, if this looming declaration of intent shifts many of the most contentious issues off for further work. There have been various speculative reports pointing to this eventuality over the past week or so, that this trade pact will be work in progress.
What, then, are we welcoming?
block-time published-time 1.18pm AEST
I have noted it but I'll note it again, lest it get lost in the zinger wash.
Senator Lambie is emotional today. She's obviously under considerable pressure.
block-time published-time 1.08pm AEST
Gold stamp to Shane Bazzi.
Signs, symbols and portents.
She's not wearing her @PalmerUtdParty yellow scarf today RT @mpbowers Senator Lambie #senate@GuardianAus@murpharoopic.twitter.com/gD21MEUmuL
- Shane Bazzi (@shanebazzi) November 17, 2014
Lambie right now is engaged in a stand-off with Cory Bernardi. Bernardi is in the chair in the senate, presiding. Lambie is persisting in today's tactic, which is give the same speech about ADF pay in every legislative debate.
Given the subject to hand is actually sports doping, Bernardi would like Lambie to address her remarks to the substance of the issue. Lambie ignores him, persisting in her moving monologue. Green Richard di Natale steps in to help Bernardi, because that's how we are rolling, today. Sensing the growing absurdity of this sit com casting, Lambie gives way.
Senator Richard Di Natale takes a point of order on relevance to the bill being debated which resulted in senator Lambie giving up trying to read emails from serving defence members to the senate chamber this afternoon in Parliament House, Canberra, Monday 17th November 2014 Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.20pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.55pm AEST
Politics, this lunchtime
Here's our crusader, Jacqui Lambie. In the back of Mike's shot, you'll see her chief of staff, Rob Messenger - the chap booted from the PUP by Clive Palmer last week. All rather unseemly - the PUP wars.
Senator Jacqui Lambie speaks in the senate chamber this morning, in Parliament House, Canberra, Monday 17th November 2014 Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
But let's keep the blogue bus rolling by stopping to make sure that we are all fully on top of the morning in politics. Canberra, this Monday.
Thus far:
The G20 read out was either shocker or salvation for Tony Abbott, or possibly both, depending on which version of events you consumed.
After a challenging weekend, the prime minister sought a more orderly start to the morning by seeking a fireside chat with Alan Jones - or perhaps Alan sought to dial up an otherwise dull Monday by hyperventilating at the prime minister - in any case, regardless of who sought out whom, it was character forming fifteen minutes for Tony Abbott, who in no particular order, failed the pub test; could not buy a coal mine in China; had not spruiked coal and other suitably carbon intensive energy options enough; had not managed to hold off the awful French in Brisvegas; had not banned wind farms; had not king hit Barack Obama ; had not produced a register of foreign investment in farmland.
Chinese president Xi Jinping arrived, with cheersquad, and pen, to sign a declaration of intent on a free trade agreement.
In Sydney, the German chancellor Angela Merkel spoke about post war European diplomacy; about Russia's departure from the norms of post war European diplomacy - and she urged American security forces to try another line when it came to understanding the political class in Berlin. Don't tap the phone, take us to dinner.
PUP renegade Jacqui Lambie did everything possible to be noticed. Breaking.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.40pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.31pm AEST
I should have mentioned this before but got caught in my various wave jumping(s) - NICTA (visited this morning by Chancellor Merkel ) got its funding cut in the May budget.
Awks.
block-time published-time 12.24pm AEST
If you want to know what we think, don't tap our phone, take us to dinner: Merkel
Q: I'm going to ask a final question. You may remember candidate Barack Obama visiting Berlin in 2008 and one of the things he said then was "true partnership and true progress requires allies who will listen to each other." It turns out in the case of Germany, the National Security Agency took his comment literally as you found out. How should western countries strike a balance between on the one hand collecting the intelligence that guarantees our security and on the other hand not engaging in overzealousness that damages important relationships with friends?
Merkel says different countries approach this issue differently.
However.
There's one view I don't share and this is a disagreement with the United States.
The political class in Berlin doesn't need to be supervised and monitored by security services to know what they're thinking. Go for dinner or lunch with them or read the papers and you know 99.9% of what they actually think.
block-time published-time 12.19pm AEST
No FTA text today - just a declaration of intent
One of those cross currents that are inevitable on a day like today.
FTA: an update
Tony Abbott has just issued a statement that indicates the FTA negotiations are now complete. But it seems clear that there won't be a finalised text today. The Abbott statement says today, the two governments will sign a declaration of intent - a precursor to a legal text. So no settled text in other words. The same thing happened with Japan and Korea - the broad parameters, fine print to follow. (Shh, don't tell Alan.)
Back now to Merkel.
The questions have been firing away. Is the German chancellor concerned about the UK drifting away from Europe?
(Yes.)
Merkel:
I'm doing everything I can in order for the UK to remain a member of the European Union for very good German reasons. What the British decide to do is something they have to decide for themselves and they certainly will not listen to what others have to say on this, but it is most important for us to have the United Kingdom in the union.
How about the rise of China? Merkel says China is intent on entering a new and glorious period in history. How the rise of China squares with American strategic interests is the key to the thing.
Step-by-step they want to become an international, global player. The Chinese-American relationship also is of tremendous importance in this respect.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.33pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.00pm AEST
Merkel is moving now to questions at the Lowy Institute. Before the lecture this morning, the chancellor made a visit to NICTA - Australia's Information and Communications Technology Research Centre of Excellence. Thanks to Annie O'Rourke for this picture.
@murpharoo Angela Merkel enjoying a tour of @NICTA earlier this morning pic.twitter.com/tRmUeqo6d4
- Annie O'Rourke (@89oEast) November 17, 2014
First question to the chancellor is how do we influence Vladimir Putin, given that the sanctions seem only to have driven up his popularity?
Q: What is the best combination of carrots and sticks to influence Mr Putin?
Merkel:
We need to have the necessary patience for an uphill battle.
We have to prove that we've learned something from the past. And since you cannot make any safe predictions as to the future, it's not all that easy to find the right course of action. We know that you cannot and should not be too peaceful. You should take it seriously when somebody sort of threatens you, or keep a very close eye on the actions of others, and we know that even small conflicts may very well turn into bigger complications very quickly.
She says the EU needs to stand together and stand with the US.
The biggest danger is that we allow ourselves to be separate, to be divided, that a wedge will be driven between us. So it was in Europe and in the world, so it was so important for the US and Europe to pursue the same course, for a very long time.
block-time published-time 11.52am AEST
Merkel moves from diplomacy to economic consolidation after the global financial crisis, and to geopolitical security. The German chancellor says Europe needs structural reform and Europe needs to go for growth. In terms of security, Europe has an interest in seeing the states of Asia rise peacefully and without any sort of sharp ruptures. Merkel lists the current challenges before the world: Ukraine, the Middle Eastern conflagration, ebola. She says economic integration imposes broader obligations - and like minded countries need to work together.
Merkel:
Globalisation is no longer merely an economic phenomenon. It has turned all of us into neighbours. More and more countries see themselves facing the same kind of challenges and for Europe and Germany, it's most important to have a partner in Australia here in this Asia Pacific region that shares the same values that we have.
Climate change too. (Here's looking at you, Tony.)
If we do not put a brake on climate change, it will have devastating consequences for all of us, there will be more storms, there will be more heat and catastrophes more doubts, there will be a rising sea levels an increasing floods. Climate change knows no borders. It will not stop before the Pacific Islands and the whole of the international community here has to shoulder a responsibility to bring about a sustainable development.
Our ambition is to come for - to - an agreement that is binding for all states. Only in this way can global warming be actually limited to 2 degrees celsius. So all countries are called upon to announce their national contributions for this world climate agreement until the first quarter of 2015 at the very latest. Only in this way will we be able to prepare the conference in Paris in an appropriate way and be able to achieve a substantial result there.
block-time published-time 11.38am AEST
The German chancellor Angela Merkel has stepped up at the Lowy Institute in Sydney. The audience have their translation head sets on. Merkel's address this morning is about European diplomacy - the structures imposed after two world wars to promote consensus. Shifting power struggles and alliances, she says, have been replaced by the rule of law. There are, sadly, exceptions. The chancellor is looking at you, Vladimir.
Merkel:
And yet we have to see that in Europe too there are still forces that refuse to accept the concept of mutual respect and of settling conflicts with democratic and legal means. Those that put the right of the stronger before the right of the strength of the law. And this is exactly what happened with the annexation of the Crimea, it is a clear violation of international law and that was carried out by Russia at the beginning of this year. Russia in this way violates territorial integrity and the sovereignty of Ukraine as a state, a neighbouring state is labelled and seen as part of a sphere of influence. After the horror of two world wars and the end of the Cold War, this caused the whole of the European peaceful order into question.
block-time published-time 11.30am AEST
Mike Bowers has been down shooting pool pictures for the Xi visit. Here's a sample.
Might be just me but I did a small recoil at the grip and grin. More like a grimace from the prime minister.
The President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping arrives at a bi-lateral meeting with Prime Minister Tony Abbott in Parliament House Canberra this morning, Monday 17th November 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
Well, hello there.
The President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping arrives at a bi-lateral meeting with Prime Minister Tony Abbott in Parliament House Canberra this morning, Monday 17th November 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 11.24am AEST
Some pictures now. Earlier I mentioned there were duelling protesters down the front waiting for president Xi.
Let's call this officialdom versus dissent, a case study.
Protesters gather outside Parliament House in Canberra, Monday, Nov. 17, 2014. The Chinese President Xi Jinping, who attended the G20 Leaders Summit in Brisbane, will be delivering an address to the Australian parliament today. Photograph: ALAN PORRITT/AAPIMAGE
block-time published-time 11.18am AEST
Meanwhile, over in the senate, the sometime/kinda/sorta PUP senator Jacqui Lambie is wedged deep in struggle street. She's voting against everything until the diggers get a better pay rise. I think. The sharp end is a bit lost on the various evils inflicted on the populace by everyone apart from Lambie.
Ah, yes, that is the point. She's calling for a cross bench revolution - don't vote for anything until the Coalition revokes its disgusting pay offer. (Suck on that Cliev.)
Lambie is trembling with rage. She either has the flu or she's about to burst into tears.
block-time published-time 11.11am AEST
Aren't we all, Intern.
I'm excited. #LowyLecture#Lowypic.twitter.com/CL63cx5Svh
- ABC News Intern (@ABCnewsIntern) November 17, 2014
block-time published-time 11.09am AEST
Meanwhile, in another venue, in another city, with considerably less contention.
Appropriately orderly and efficient queue for #AngelaMerkel@murpharoo She speaking in 45 mins pic.twitter.com/B1mluNBJy6
- Michael Safi (@safimichael) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 11.08am AEST
Looking past Alan's faux pub test to the practical sensitivities
To organising principles.
Whether you buy Alan's pub test or not, the broadcaster's encounter with the prime minister this morning does underscore the point there are political sensitivities around free trade deals in general, and this free trade deal in particular.
Jones spent time on Chinese investment in his interview today with Abbott. We of course don't yet have the detail associated with this trade pact, but the non-official official word for some time has been that China will get the same deal as the United States, Korea and Japan. That means the investment threshold attracting scrutiny by the Foreign Investment Review Board (Firb) will be increased from $248m to $1bn. That's for private investment. Folks who follow these debates closely will know that the bulk of in-bound investment from China is from state owned enterprises (SOEs), not from private firms. The early word from Camp Abbott had been that SOEs would get a better deal in this FTA, essentially because Beijing wanted a better deal. But more recent reports suggest that's not the case. Currently all SOE investment is screened by Firb.
In no particular order, these are some of the political sensitivities related to an FTA with China:
Foreign investment regulations, particularly in farmland and agri-businesses (because the National party gets very antsy about this issue)
People movement and temporary migration provisions (because the ALP and the union movement are very antsy about this issue)
Copyright and predatory pricing (because business is very antsy about the propsect of China dumping goods in Australia below cost)
Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions (because these are the new battlefront in the age old trade liberalisation versus sovereignty argument)
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.13am AEST
block-time published-time 10.46am AEST
As Alan performances go, that one was only four stars. He did leave some headroom there. It is helpful though, as an organising principle. More of that shortly.
Live pictures coming through now of president Xi coming in to the prime minister's office. The senate is also sitting, taking care of business. One of the social services bills is being debated.
block-time published-time 10.30am AEST
Alan is refusing to desist from the fast breathing.
This is a dog, this China deal. A dawg.
Abbott:
Alan, look, many voters disagree with many things governments do.
Alan has achieved his objective and is now bored. He dismisses the prime minister who he's sure is very busy and has things to do. Alan always has things to do, obviously. Let the record show, that so dismissed, the prime minister moved on.
block-time published-time 10.25am AEST
Jones:
I've had this out with Andrew Robb, he thinks I'm a nutter.
The prime minister :
Well I'm not sure he does.
He can respectfully disagree without thinking people are nutters.
block-time published-time 10.23am AEST
Jones points out that Abbott can't buy a coal mine in China either. Another aspiration dashed.
Abbott points out to Alan that in a communist regime, ownership is actually complex business.
Alan doesn't want reason cluttering up this conversation.
Jones:
PM you don't have a mandate for this!
Actually, it was [sharp intake of breath] PM, YOU DON'T HAVE A MANDATE FOR THIS.
block-time published-time 10.16am AEST
Back now to the pub test, because Alan hasn't finished with that.
This FTA with China, that's failed the pub test. They aren't swallowing this in the pubs, Alan says.
Jones:
Q: To win an election, you have to pass the pub test. Now I can tell you the board here this morning is in meltdown on the open line. Why can't we see this free trade agreement?
Abbott, (periodically):
Uh huh.
Jones:
Q: China is giving us nothing. The dairy farms are owned by China. By this time next week who is going to own little Tasmania?
Abbott:
Well, Alan..
Jones:
Q: Can Tony Abbott buy a farm in China?
Abbott:
Err..
Jones:
Q: The answer is no.
block-time published-time 10.09am AEST
Alan never lets incoherence blunt his natural vehemence. Jones tells the prime minister global warming is a hoax and wind turbines are a fake.
Jones:
Q: Doesn't economic growth start at home?
Abbott:
Well, it does Alan.
(After a suitable interval.)
Abbott:
I can't work miracles Alan.
Jones wants to know why a wind turbine manufacturer from Qatar gets a subsidy and the working stiff doesn't get a subsidy. He wants to know why there isn't more coal worship. The prime minister points out he has been engaged in coal worship. Yes, but why isn't that taking off, Alan wonders. The left and the Abbott haters, that's why. And that meaningless climate agreement Barack Obama signed with President Xi. That's why. The eternal why.
block-time published-time 9.59am AEST
Alan Jones to Tony Abbott: you don't pass the pub test
Alan is evidently unhappy that we spent a whole lot of money on a summit in Brisbane that achieved nothing.
The prime minister is unhappy that he chose Jones for this morning's fireside chat because this interview is not going to plan and we are only five minutes in.
Jones declares that Abbott - a person he's known for thousands of years - does not pass the pub test.
Neither does anything that comes out of his mouth.
Jones:
People listening to you, because my real concern here is a lot of this does not pass the pub test. And I suppose as someone who has known you for thousands of years - you don't pass the pub test on some of these things too.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.00am AEST
block-time published-time 9.51am AEST
I'll come back to specific FTA issues, but first, back to Alan. I've only just hit the opening editorial set up from Jones, but it's clear already this one's a keeper. This will be full frontal populism.
Jones suggests that the G20 meeting in Brisbane is the only time in history where a coherent agenda has been presented. Only time in history, because let's face it, the rest of the world is completely incompetent.
Jones:
France - no leadership at all.
Hopeless.
Gems to follow, very shortly.
block-time published-time 9.42am AEST
One useful thing to wrap our mind around before things get brisk today is - who is our visitor? Where does he sit on the spectrum of Chinese leadership?
The Xi slogan in China has been "Chinese dream." Analysts are still coming to terms with what that means in a practical sense, but much of the reporting about China's leader suggests he's a nationalist.
Here are some helpful readings.
From the New York Times : Xi as conservative, leftist, nationalist.
Mr. Xi's hard line has disappointed Chinese liberals, some of whom once hailed his rise to power as an opportunity to push for political change after a long period of stagnation. Instead, Mr. Xi has signaled a shift to a more conservative, traditional leftist stance with his "rectification" campaign to ensure discipline and conspicuous attempts to defend the legacy of Mao Zedong.
From The Economist: on Xi's "Chinese dream" - a creatively ambiguous marker of generational change
Flanked by six dour-looking, dark-clad colleagues from the Politburo's standing committee, Mr Xi told a gaggle of press and museum workers that the "greatest Chinese dream" was the "great revival of the Chinese nation". Nationalists see their own dreams validated. To them the tall and portly Mr Xi represents a new vigour in Chinese politics after Mr Hu's studied greyness. His talk of China's revival plays to their sense that China has a rightful place at the top of the global pecking-order.
block-time published-time 9.29am AEST
There is much pomp planned of course for Xi Jinping's visit to Canberra today.
For folks who like to plan, and have a low tolerance for pomp - the business end of today is this afternoon rather than this morning. The Chinese president's address to parliament is mid afternoon, 3.35pm; as is the press conference with Tony Abbott, which is expected at 4.30pm. I'm glad of the slow burn - it means more time to set up the substance of the day properly - a rare luxury in this format.
block-time published-time 9.15am AEST
Speaking of unhappy, as I mentioned to you earlier, Sydney broadcaster Alan Jones sounded distinctly unhappy about the China FTA in the tail end of the interview with the prime minister that I referenced first up on Politics Live this morning. Frequent listeners to Jones would not be shocked by that development.
I'll chase up more of that when I can.
Down the front of parliament house right now the official Chinese welcoming party - those folks who turned up 'spontaneously' at the airport to welcome president Xi last night - are facing off against a bunch of Falun Gong folks.
The sanctioned welcomers have a talent for placing themselves in the live TV pictures.
block-time published-time 8.52am AEST
Back to hosing out the venue after the G20.
Oh dear. Safe to conclude either:
1. The prime minister is unhappy that the US president Barack Obama brought climate change to Brisbane when he was meant to be fascinated by jobs and growth; or
2. The Australian's Greg Sheridan is unhappy on the prime minister's behalf.
Greg Sheridan:
It's a strange way to treat a friend but it is all of a piece, sadly, with Obama's presidential style, especially as the power ebbs from him in the dying days of his reign. The damage may not be long-lasting because the US president's remarks bore little relation to anything he can deliver or will do. Instead, they reprise the most ineffably capricious and inconsequential moments in the Obama presidency: grand gestures, soaring visions, which never actually get implemented in the real world. Obama went out of his way to imply, in the most politically damaging fashion he could, that Australia's efforts on climate change were negligible and compared poorly with America's. In fact, Australia's efforts on greenhouse gas reduction are almost identical with those of the US.
block-time published-time 8.40am AEST
Poor old Barnaby can't share a word, but here's the FTA lowdown courtesy of the toplines various secret squirrels have shared with various scribes.
The Australian tells usTony Abbott has won a "dramatic increase in market access for Australian farmers, services and manufacturers in a trade deal worth at least $18 billion over a decade that maintains full scrutiny of investments by Chinese state-owned enterprises."
The Australian Financial Review tells us service providers "have won unprecedented access to Chinese markets under the Australia-China free trade agreement, which will liberate more than 90% of Australian exports from tariffs over the next four years."
We'll tease out various FTA issues here - policy issues, and political implications and consequences - throughout the day.
block-time published-time 8.17am AEST
The agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce is on the ABC's AM program, speaking about the looming free trade agreement that will be unveiled this afternoon.
Joyce informs his host Chris Uhlmann he has the FTA text in front of him, but he can't possibly tell us what it says. Joyce invokes a folksy but not terribly conprehensible Christmas tree analogy. Then he tells the truth. He says if he spills the beans, it's back to the backbench for Barnaby. Or perhaps he'll be quarantined at the airport as an ebola risk. Happy days. There's no B in team.
block-time published-time 8.09am AEST
Good morning to Mr Bowers, who was at RAAF Fairbairn last night to welcome president Xi Jinping to the Australian capital.
With a few folks who just spontaneously turned up with very big flags.
Supporters outnumbered the protestors for arrival of the President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping and his wife Madam Peng Liyuan at RAAF Fairbairn in Canberra this evening, Sunday 16th November 2014. Photograph by Mike Bowers Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia The President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping arrives with his wife Mada, Peng Liyuan at RAAF Fairfairn in Canberra. Sunday 16th November 2014. Photograph by Mike Bowers Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 7.57am AEST
Good morning and welcome to the Monday after the Friday, Saturday and Sunday before. In Brisbane they are packing up the party pies and the cameo koalas and the shirtfronts. Australian politics and the G20 folks who just don't want to go home yet are currently making their way to Canberra because too much summiting is barely enough.
It's one of those mornings where the events of the past few days are in the eye of the beholder.
If you glance at The Courier Mail, Tony Abbott wasn't shirtfronted by the US president over climate change (which was the weekend consensus elsewhere) - Tony was actually the shirtfronter of the US president.
Bad Barack. Bad, bad Barack.
" @wrongdorey : @couriermailpic.twitter.com/BICmfxjPMd " Am I reading this right? Abbott didn't shirtfront Putin, but he did yell at Obama?
- George Megalogenis (@GMegalogenis) November 16, 2014
But if you read the LA Times, the prime minister's performance at the G20 was more Clearasil than shirtfont.
Occasionally, there's an awkward, pimply youth moment so embarrassing that it does sting. Like when 19 of the world's most important leaders visit for a global summit and prime minister Tony Abbott opens their retreat Saturday with a whinge (Aussie for whine) about his doomed efforts to get his fellow Australians to pay $7 to see a doctor.
Moving forward.
The prime minister has stopped by 2GB this morning to wrap up the G20 weekend and point triumphantly forward (I've just caught the tail end of this conversation, so sadly I've missed the advertorial for digestion aids that normally sets up a prime ministerial interview) - Alan Jones seems in a terrible tizz about the free trade deal with China.
Alan's voice has climbed several octaves.
Jones:
It's going to be signed before we see it!
(Well, yes, Alan. That's how things tends to go: secret until public. Fortunately the government has 'helped' by leaking much of the bits and pieces.) The prime minister sounds like you sound when you've clenched your jaw in order to prevent unseemly words escaping from your lips.
It's combat everywhere, actually. The environment minister Greg Hunt is on ABC Radio National Breakfast dressing down host Fran Kelly for climate change related thought crimes. Very touchy.
Anyway, strap on your bike helmets. It's going to be a lively day. We will wind, elegantly, out of Brisbane, and leap forward with Beijing. The lawn mowers are whirring downstairs in preparation for today's visit to Canberra by president Xi Jinping. Various pomps and circumstances will be followed by signatures on a premable to a bilateral free trade pact. I'll be covering all that live.
The Politics Live thread is open for your business. I'll fire up the Twits in a moment, and you can reach me there @murpharoo and the man with the lens @mpbowers
LOAD-DATE: November 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
273 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 17, 2014 Monday 5:07 AM GMT
Angela Merkel pressures Australia to reveal its greenhouse gas targets;
German chancellor tells Sydney audience climate change knows no borders and will not stop before the Pacific islands
BYLINE: Michael Safi
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 561 words
The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has intensified pressure on Australia to say how deeply it will cut carbon emissions, telling a Sydney audience "all countries" should reveal their targets "in the first quarter [of 2015] at the very latest".
Giving the annual Lowy lecture, Merkel said on Monday the world must put a brake on climate change or "it will have devastating consequences for all of us".
"Climate change knows no borders. It will not stop before the Pacific islands and the whole of the international community here has to shoulder a responsibility to bring about a sustainable development," Merkel said.
The call for greenhouse gas targets to be announced early was included - reportedly against the wishes of the Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott - in the G20 summit's final communique. An early announcement is seen as a key condition for the success of November's climate conference in Paris.
The G20 communique included a little wriggle room, asking parties to reveal their targets early next year only if "ready to do so", but was seen as a substantial concession by the summit's Australian hosts.
In a wide-ranging address, Merkel tied "the terrible disease" of Ebola, China's rise ("peaceful and without any ruptures") and the civil war raging in eastern Ukraine to her theme of the importance of European institutions after a blood-soaked century of conflict on the continent.
"We have to see that in Europe too there are still forces that refuse to accept the concept of mutual respect and of settling conflicts with democratic and legal means," she said.
The annexation of Crimea by Russian-linked forces was "a clear violation of international law".
"Russia in this way violates territorial integrity and the sovereignty of Ukraine as a state ... After the horror of two world wars and the end of the Cold War, this calls the whole of the European peaceful order into question," Merkel said.
Mindful of history, particularly in a year commemorating the outbreak of the first world war, she said Germany would "spare no effort to promote a diplomatic solution to the conflict".
"We need to have the necessary patience for an uphill battle," she said.
She touched on a restive UK, whose Conservative leader, David Cameron, is distancing himself from the European Union over the free movement of labour and has promised a referendum on EU membership if his party regains power at next year's election.
"What the British decide to do is something they have to decide for themselves," Merkel said. "But I hope this drifting away will not happen ... It is most important for us to have the United Kingdom in the union."
It was a high-powered audience, dotted with business leaders, former prime ministers, students and diplomatic officials. The presence of the institute's namesake and benefactor, Frank Lowy, whose father died in Auschwitz, added poignancy to the German leader's call for international order.
Merkel even managed a quip across the language barrier, answering a question on the explosive revelations of the whistleblower Edward Snowden, that the United States had spied on her and other German officials.
"I think the political class in Berlin doesn't need to be supervised and monitored by intelligence services in order to find out what they're thinking," she said. "Just go to lunch with them, go to dinner with them, or read the papers."
LOAD-DATE: November 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
274 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 17, 2014 Monday 4:08 AM GMT
10 things we learned at the G20: the good, the bad and the silly;
Merkel selfies, Cameron avoiding the proles, koalas snuggles - it was a busy few days in Queensland
BYLINE: Van Badham
SECTION: COMMENT IS FREE
LENGTH: 1505 words
Well, the leaders of the world's largest economies have thoroughly Queenslanded themselves. Amongst photo ops with koalas, a legion of hot cops on wheels and protest movement with more demands than a Hollywood pre-nup, statements were made, negotiations negotiated and the survival of life on earth even addressed in the odd casual chat. Now everyone's packing up their toys and going home, what did we learn at the Brisbane G20?
1. Tony Abbott: all mouth and no trousers
Australia's clown in chief promised much but delivered all too little when it came to his notorious promise to " shirtfront " the Russian president Vladimir Putin over concerns Russia had mishandled the Mhl atrocity.
Putin and Abbott had in fact met a few days previously in China at APEC but rather than a full-contact, AFL-style bollocking, the meeting between the two was reported as "measured and respectful in tone". By Putin's arrival at the G20, Abbott had replaced threats of shirtfronting with joint photo opportunities for the Russian leader, cuddling koalas.
That a fleet of Russian warships with nuclear strike capability had travelled to international waters north of the Australian continent in advance of the G20 was amusing, but, we're assured, just standard procedure.
2.This is how the Big Boys do it, Tony
Probably because a fleet of nuclear warships were not lurking around Canadian waters, Abbott's conservative hero, " Canadia 's" Stephen Harper, offered a far less marsupial greeting to the Russian president. At the G20, Putin's hand extended to greet the Canadian leader, who shook it while being quoted as saying :
Well I guess I'll shake your hand, but I only have one thing to say to you: you need to get out of Ukraine.
Putin kept his hand on the Canadian while replying "unfortunately it is impossible - because we are not there," according to a Kremlin press source.
Abbott, alternatively, contributed to a "strongly worded statement" composed with president Obama and Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, condemning Russia over its actions in Ukraine, although Ukraine wasn't directly mentioned during the official sessions of the G20.
3. George Brandis: climate denier
Australian attorney-general and bigots-defender, George Brandis, had his very own head become a symbol of both the impact of climate change and the potential of solar power whilst waiting for US president Barack Obama in the 40 degree heat at RAAF Base Amberley. Perhaps symptomatically of his party's refusal to take climate change seriously, George's omission of sunblock in his G20 preparations delivered to the twitterverse an image of his sunburned red scalp devoured by wits worldwide. "Medium-rare, that's how I like my bigots" quipped @TracyShosh, amongst many.
4. Dorothy, we're not in Joh Bjelke-Petersen's Kansas Anymore (at least, not this week)
Special G20 security legislation with draconian detention provisions was of concern to protestors prior to the event, but the police peace effort around the G20 was unrecognisable to anyone with living memory of Brisbane in the 1970s and 1980s. The image of Queensland "jacks" booting the bejesus out of music fans became something of a national icon in the reign of Joh Bjelke-Petersen but was nowhere to be found amongst a deployment of police that, while enormous and involving interstate and even international reinforcements, involved only 14 arrests for minor offences, bottles of iced water provided to protestors and even police lifts home.
One blue haired young person unwisely equipped with a gas-mask and knife learned that these accessories were a statement of something, but fashion it wasn't.
5. Angela Merkel: selfie champ
The quirky German chancellor added to her impressive reputation for behaviour Australians may be surprised to expect from a conservative world leader on her Brisbane visit. In a year that's seen a country under her leadership restructure its energy economy to meet renewable energy targets and the complete scrapping of tuition fees for undergraduate degrees, 60 year old Merkel also got down with the patrons of Brisbane bar Brewski, posing for selfies with patrons who recognised her when she was out for a nighttime stroll.
David Cameron played out a more predictable persona by avoiding the proles at the Stokehouse restaurant down the road. One so hopes he enjoyed his cheese.
6. Back at the oppression of the working class...
Amongst the fun and games, the more serious agenda of the G20 was to commit the economies of the participants to meeting an economic growth target of 2% over the next five years. Also converging on Brisbane was the "Labour 20" (l20) of Labour union leaders - including Australian Sharan Burrow, now general secretary of the International Confederation of Trade Unions - who decry this 2% figure.
The L20 identify unrealistic economic modelling informs this target, which presumes full employment without any plans for higher wages or job creation. Australian treasurer Joe Hockey, however, declared that the G20 will exceed the target, although he did not specify how. This is the same Hockey whose own budget last week was found to contain a $51bn black hole, so take your pick on who you trust.
7. The times they are a-climate changing
Abbott's claim "coal is good for humanity" may not merely fly in the face of scientific fact, but also, it seems, attempts to make oneself popular in company. The Australian prime minister's infamous resistance to a substantive address of emissions at the summit turned out to be something of a fart in an elevator when the world's biggest polluters, the US and China, agreed in advance of the G20 to meet emission's targets.
Abbott's recalcitrance to recognise the need for action provoked direct rebuke from the American president in Brisbane. He said:
No nation is immune and every nation has a responsibility to do its part... The US and Australia (have) a lot in common. Well, one of the things we have in common is we produce a lot of carbon ... which means we've got to step up.
If coal is good for humanity, it seems it's not a humanity that included Americans or the Chinese and, at least in economic terms, that's a helluva lot of people for Abbott to exclude.
8.... but Alan Jones is not changing anything (except his feelings for the prime minister)
Abbott may have been intimidated by Putin, outclassed by Merkel and embarrassed by both the Americans and Chinese, but at least he found sympathetic support for his work at the G20 from Australia's ancientest conservative cheerleader, Alan Jones. Except, he didn't. Abbott's one achievement of the G20, securing a free trade deal with China, inflamed the talkback host into a protectionist eruption, who declared a deal which would allow Chinese businesses to buy dairy farms, wineries and other "agricultural assets" failed "the pub test".
Jones did also declare "You know that wind turbines are a fake... Global warming is a hoax, we've had nothing for 18 years," so the world, as yet, remains on its regular axis.
9. Meanwhile, in poor countries...
Global warming sure does not feel like a hoax to the subsistence farmers of Africa. Oxfam's director Winnie Byanyima declared at a session for the People's Summit that those on the land in her home country of Uganda "can no longer rely on the seasons" when it comes to their agricultural calendar. That action on climate change is interrelated to social justice and the need for economic fairness was a theme at Byanyima's several appearances across forums in Brisbane, whose chilling descriptions of a childhood where she believed she was rich because she was not married off at 14 brought home the real implications of economic decisionmaking here.
On the subject of tax avoidance, Byanyima welcomed G20 moves to crack down on offshoring and tax havens but made the point that poor countries continued to be "bled dry". In Sierra Leone, she reminded the assembled, "Ebola is raging and tax incentives for six multinational companies are eight times the health budget".
10. For social change, just add wings
Amidst a colourful procession of protestors that channeled a demand for marijuana legalisation, the cause of decolonisation and restitution for Black Australia, pleas for the release of refugees and a parade of yellow-shirted Falun Gong throwing a baton-shaped gauntlet at majorettes for march discipline, this writer lent her body - avec prosthetic wings - to the cause of climate action amongst a group of Climate Angels.
It was fortuitous that we chose to blockade the entrance to the G20 party on Saturday night, as no less than Bill Shorten stumbled into our feathery sit in. "I support what you're doing - I am on your side here" quoteth the leader of the opposition as the prime minister resisted angelic demands for a meeting and was led by police from the building.
We'll hold you to it, Bill - though, if there is one lesson this particular activist learnt at the G20, it's that if you're going to be spending your day in white, you might want to avoid the fluroescent floral bra.
LOAD-DATE: November 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
275 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 17, 2014 Monday 3:35 AM GMT
Australia's G20 in the world's press: climate change, koalas and cringing;
Tony Abbott may have wanted to keep the climate off the summit agenda, but the international media had other ideas
BYLINE: Bridie Jabour
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 1214 words
The world's eyes were on Australia over the G20 weekend. Well, the world's eyes were on what their leaders were doing in Australia over the G20 weekend.
International coverage was as varied as it was formulaic. News organisations gave top billing to their leaders and what they said and who they met with at the summit, but that did not mean the host country was completely ignored.
So how did Australia fare in the international coverage of G20?
The Los Angeles Times: " Australia left to cringe once again at a leader's awkward moment "
This scathing piece, which labelled Australia "the shrimp of the schoolyard", was written by an Australian journalist and has gone viral on our shores. It focused primarily on prime minister Tony Abbott's performance at the summit.
It reported:
"...occasionally, there's an awkward, pimply youth moment so embarrassing that it does sting. Like when 19 of the world's most important leaders visit for a global summit and Prime Minister Tony Abbott opens their retreat Saturday with a whinge (Aussie for whine) about his doomed efforts to get his fellow Australians to pay $7 to see a doctor. And then he throws in a boast that his government repealed the country's carbon tax, standing out among Western nations as the one willing to reverse progress on global warming - just days after the United States and China reached a landmark climate change deal. The Group of 20 summit could have been Australia's moment, signaling its arrival as a global player, some here argued. But in all, the summit had Australians cringing more than cheering."
New York Times: "Finishing Asia Tour, Obama Promotes More Ambitious Foreign Policy"
The NYT put the G20 in the context of president Barack Obama's broader trip through Asia and noted his strong words on climate while in Brisbane, while labelling Abbott "a blunt skeptic" on climate change.
"Mr. Obama's words carried an extra edge in Australia, where Prime Minister Tony Abbott is a blunt skeptic about the science behind climate change. He boasted to the leaders gathered for the meeting that his government had repealed a tax on carbon emissions - a key tool to curb the greenhouse gases that heat up the atmosphere. Mr. Abbott tried to keep climate change off the agenda at the Group of 20 meeting, preferring to focus on jobs and economic growth. But Mr. Obama's $3 billion pledge to the Green Climate Fund, announced in his speech here, made that difficult. The timing was clearly intended to prod other would-be donors, like Japan, which was expected to announce a contribution of up to $1.5 billion toward the fund's total goal of $10 billion."
The Independent: G20 summit: David Cameron pledges UK will 'play its part' in backing climate fund to help developing countries tackle emissions
The UK's Independent looked at the potential domestic ramifications of prime minister David Cameron's commitment to the Green Climate Fund and mentioned his "bromance" with Abbott may have helped climate change make it into the communique.
"Climate change was not expected to be a major issue at the G20. Tony Abbott, the Australian prime minister and G20 president this year, was not keen to have the issue on the agenda and yesterday told his fellow leaders that he was "standing up for coal". Mining is a major reason for the economic strength of Australia. But a deal signed by the US and China, which account for about 40 per cent of global greenhouse emissions, seemed to refocus the agenda. Eventually, a passage on climate change made it into the summit's conclusions, which said the G20 supported "mobilising finance for adaptation and mitigation" of carbon emissions, noted that development of clean energy sources would support economic growth, and that member countries would "phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption". Australian media suggested that the "bromance" between Mr Cameron and Mr Abbott, which has been evident in recent days by their praise of each other's handling of the economy and international threats, led to the Australian prime minister agreeing to put climate change in the communiqué."
Le Monde: G20, hard struggle for a paragraph on climate
France's Le Monde noted the resistance to including climate change on the G20 agenda and, according to an English translation of an article in its coverage, positioned France as one of the countries fighting for it to be included.
"France and its partners have achieved the inclusion of a paragraph in the final communiqué of the meeting in Brisbane, Australia , which advocates a "strong and effective action" on global warming and the need to find a MoU international at the Conference of the Parties on climate (COP21) to be held in Paris in 2015. The UN Green Fund, designed to help developing countries to adapt to the effects of global warming, is also discussed."
China Daily: Koalas steal the show at G20 in Brisbane
China Daily gave a prominent position on its website to the koalas at the G20, which the organisation seemed delighted with:
"Australia's cutest animal stole much of the limelight at the G20 summit over the weekend in subtropical Brisbane, when the host country launched a behind-the-scenes diplomatic offensive. Before sitting down to address the woes the world is facing, participants the high-level talks were each handed a koala for a photo session on Saturday, and all seemed to enjoy their time with Australia's cuddly mas cot. Leaders attending the G20 summit, including US President Barack Obama, Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, were all charmed by the Australian marsupial, or pouched mammal."
China Daily also ran a Xinhua agency piece which gave fairly straight up and down treatment to Abbott's address on Sunday headlined "G20 leaders summit will make better world: Abbott"
Indian Express: G20 commits to growth, fighting climate change
Indian Express noted that most of the 2.1% global GDP growth target would be coming from India and emphasised the role of climate change in the summit:
"Leaders of the Group of 20 countries on Sunday agreed to take a variety of measures to add an extra $2 trillion or 2.1 per cent to world economic output and create millions of jobs by 2018. Despite host Australia pitching hard to keep climate change outside the G20 agenda, US President Barack Obama brought conviction to its inclusion by announcing a $3 billion climate change fund for developing countries on Saturday. Japan followed suit by committing another $1.5 billion. Suresh Prabhu, sherpa to Prime Minister Narendra Modi said, the incremental 2 per cent growth will come mainly from India, besides China."
CTV News: Harper back to Ottawa after headline grabbing G20 summit in Australia
Canada's CTV News looked at the country's commitment to contribute to the Green Climate Fund and, like most other international outlets, noted Abbott's aversion to it.
"Obama was insistent that his fellow G20 leaders address climate change at the Australian summit, evidently determined to make climate change policy a priority in his final two years in office. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, a climate change skeptic and the summit's chairman, had wanted the meeting's primary focus to be on global job creation and economic growth."
LOAD-DATE: November 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
276 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 17, 2014 Monday 3:13 AM GMT
Climate change: Europe and US press G20 leaders for strong action;
Pressure has succeeded to an extent but Green Climate Fund remains a tensely-debated sticking pointG20 Brisbane: follow our live coverage
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 812 words
Pressure from Europe and the United States for G20 leaders to make strong commitments on climate change despite the objections of the host nation Australia has continued to the last minute and has to some extent succeeded.
But the Green Climate Fund - to which the US is poised to announce a significant $3bn contribution - remains a tensely-debated sticking point.
As revealed by the Guardian on Friday, president Barack Obama will make a substantial pledge to the fund to help poor countries fight climate change while in Brisbane, again putting the US at odds with Australia, which has argued against diplomatic efforts for G20 leaders to promise more contributions and has been reluctant to make contributions of its own.
It is understood a reference to "encouraging" countries to contribute to the fund remains "in brackets" in the draft final communique - meaning it has not yet been agreed - with the principal objections coming from Australia.
It is understood the prime minister, Tony Abbott, and his advisers will have to decide whether to allow the language to proceed in the consensus-driven G20 process.
But a s Guardian Australia revealed a week ago, the text that had at that stage made it through the G20's closed-door process was very general, and made no mention of the fund. It reads as follows: "We support strong and effective action to address climate change, consistent with sustainable economic growth and certainty for business and investment.
"We reaffirm our resolve to adopt a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that is applicable to all parties at the 21st Conference of the Parties in Paris in 2015."
Since that time it is understood the communique has also been strengthened to call on countries to unveil their post 2020 climate commitments early next year.
Abbott had previously insisted Australia would not make any contributions to the green climate fund, although it is understood the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which leads Australia's negotiating position in international climate talks, has been considering whether Canberra should make a pledge. Sources said no final decision had been made.
Asked about the fund before last year's UN climate meeting in Warsaw, the prime minister said: "We're not going to be making any contributions to that." It was reported that at one of its first cabinet meetings the Abbott government decided it would make no contributions to the fund.
Australia has also come under intense pressure to announce a target for post-2020 greenhouse gas reductions after the shock announcement from Obama and Chinese premier Xi Jinping of new national climate change goals.
The US has agreed to cut its emissions by 26% to 28% of 2005 levels by 2025 - a doubling of the pace of its reductions. If Australia were to make similar cuts by 2025 against its 2000 benchmark, it would need to reduce emissions by between 28% and 31%.
Asked where the deal left Australia's climate change policy, the expert adviser to the former government Professor Ross Garnaut said: "Exactly where it was before the US-China announcement - up shit creek."
Abbott has said he welcomed the announcement, but Australia was focused on taking "immediate action" through its "direct action" emissions reduction fund. The environment minister, Greg Hunt, said Australia would announce a post-2020 target early next year, well in time for the UN conference in Paris where it is hoped a post-2020 deal will be agreed.
Australia has insisted the G20 is not the right place to discuss climate change, because it is an economic forum.
This stance was backed by the Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, but not by the Turkish prime minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, whose country will host the next G20 meeting, and who said on Friday that focusing only on economic growth was shortsighted.
"The biggest challenge to all humanity today is climate change ... every year we are facing new challenges and we are facing new challenges and we need to address this future of ours. If the G20 agenda is only limited to financial issues, G20 cannot function, cannot have global legitimacy," he said.
UN secretary general Ban Ki Moon said he had been briefed that the leaders were "actively discussing the issue of a climate change", which he nominated as "the defining issue of our times" and therefore a "natural" topic of G20 discussion.
He called on the G20 to "take a lead" on climate and urged G20 countries to make "ambitious pledges" to the green climate fund.
Introducing the "retreat" at the start of the G20 meeting, Abbott told the world leaders he would prefer the discussion to focus on "the politics of economic reform" but "in the end, though, this is your retreat, it is open to any of you to raise any subject that you wish".
LOAD-DATE: November 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
277 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 17, 2014 Monday 3:13 AM GMT
G20: Obama puts climate change in spotlight as Australian agenda sidelined;
US president pulls focus away from economic growth with announcement of emissions deal with China and call to secure a strong global climate agreement next year
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 728 words
Climate change was forced to the top of the G20 agenda on Saturday, despite the objections of the host nation Australia, after Barack Obama urged the world to rally behind a new global agreement and the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, called it "the defining issue of our times".
The Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, had argued climate discussions would distract from the G20's economic policy focus and should be left to other UN-led meetings.
But in a one-two manoeuvre that caught Australia off guard, Obama upstaged Abbott and made certain it was the talk of the conference anyway. First came the joint US/China post-2020 greenhouse emission reduction targets announced in Beijing on the eve of the summit and then the $3bn Green Climate Fund pledge made in a keynote speech as Abbott was greeting other world leaders across town.
"No nation is immune and every nation has a responsibility to do its part," Obama said. "You will recall at the beginning I said the US and Australia has a lot in common. Well one of the things we have in common is we produce a lot of carbon ... which means we've got to step up."
He said the targets he announced with the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, sent "a powerful message to the world that all countries, whether you are a developed country, a developing country or somewhere in between, you've got to be able to overcome old divides, look squarely at the science and reach a strong global climate agreement next year".
"And if China and the US can agree on this then the world can agree on this, we can get this done and it is necessary for us to get it done."
But in the backrooms of the G20, Australia was continuing to resist language in the official communique encouraging countries to make pledges to the Green Climate Fund, prompting environmental and aid groups to warn the host nation was appearing like a "blocker".
Abbott has been highly critical of the fund. When asked about it before last year's UN climate meeting in Warsaw, he said: "We're not going to be making any contributions to that." It was reported that at one of its first cabinet meetings the Abbott government decided it would make no contributions to it.
And Australia and Canada pointedly dissented from support for the fund in a communique from last November's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.
Abbott was also attacked for focusing on his own domestic agenda as he welcomed the world leaders to a G20 "retreat" on Saturday morning.
Instead of focusing on world crises such as stagnating growth, the Ebola epidemic or conflicts, Abbott cited his difficulties in legislating for a new fee for when Australians go to the doctor and a plan to deregulate the higher education sector.
Abbott "thanked God" he had stopped the "illegal boats" - carrying asylum seekers - and had successfully repealed the carbon tax, but complained it was proving "massively difficult" to pass his budget cuts. The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, described the address as "weird and graceless".
But in the formal negotiating sessions, world leaders were talking about the things Australia wanted on the agenda: a Brisbane action plan in which G20 nations will promise to implement new policies that have been assessed to have the potential to add 2% to their collective economic growth, and an infrastructure hub to be located in Sydney promote investment.
Before the meeting only Australia had committed money to this idea, but officials said the UK, New Zealand, Korea, Singapore and Saudi Arabia had now promised an unspecified amount.
Obama also used his address to reassert American military, economic and political influence in the Asia Pacific and the importance of his so-called "pivot" to the region.
The president said the US would work "day in, day out, steadily and deliberately" to deepen its military, economic and diplomatic engagement - saying that by the end of the decade most of the US navy and air force would be based in the Pacific because "the United States is and always will be a Pacific power".
Anticipated protests outside the meeting were largely peaceful and resulted in only a handful of arrests. Police outnumbered protesters.
The world leaders were treated to an Australian barbecue lunch, cocktail reception and concert by local musicians on Saturday night. Their spouses visited a local koala sanctuary on Saturday afternoon.
LOAD-DATE: November 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
278 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 17, 2014 Monday 3:12 AM GMT
Australia a 'blocker' in G20 fight against climate change, say charities;
Reluctance to commit to contributing to Green Climate Fund is criticised by Oxfam and World Vision as US leads the way
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 446 words
Australia has been labelled a "blocker" for being the main country resisting a G20 commitment to the global Green Climate Fund even as Barack Obama was using the same meeting to pledge $3bn to it.
As revealed by Guardian Australia on Saturday, Australia was holding out against pressure from Europe and the US for G20 leaders to back pledges to the fund, which helps poor countries adapt to climate change and is seen as critical to a successful international deal at a United Nations meeting in Paris next year.
A reference to "encouraging" countries to contribute to the fund remains in brackets in the draft final communique - meaning it has not yet been agreed - with the principal objections coming from Australia. It is understood the Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, and his advisers will have to decide whether to allow the language to proceed in the consensus-driven G20 process.
Oxfam's international executive director, Winnie Byanyima, said Australia should "stop being a blocker" and risked "finding itself isolated in the world".
World Vision's chief executive, Tim Costello, said: "It would be a terrible embarrassment if Australia, the president of the G20, turned out to be the spoiler on this."
As revealed by the Guardian on Friday, Obama used a speech in Brisbane to pledge $3bn to the Green Climate Fund. The president's strong climate speech, in which he insisted nowhere had more to lose from rising temperatures than the Asia Pacific region and Australia in particular, forced the climate issue on the G20 agenda despite the host nation's reluctance.
Abbott has previously insisted Australia would not make any contributions to the green climate fund, although it is understood the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which leads Australia's negotiating position in international climate talks, has been considering whether Canberra should make a pledge. Sources said no final decision had been made.
Asked about the fund before last year's UN climate meeting in Warsaw, the prime minister said: "We're not going to be making any contributions to that." It was reported that at one of its first cabinet meetings the Abbott government decided it would make no contributions to the fund.
More than $2.8bn has been pledged to the fund so far - including $1bn by France and almost $1bn by Germany. More pledges are expected at a special conference in Berlin on 20 November. The UK has said it will make a "strong" contribution at that meeting.
Australia also pointedly dissented from support for the fund in a communique from last November's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting - a stance backed by Canada.
LOAD-DATE: November 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
279 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 17, 2014 Monday 3:10 AM GMT
Canada breaks with Australia to contribute to Green Climate Fund;
Stephen Harper changes mind, saying he is prepared to contribute to UN fund to help poor countries adapt to climate change
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 748 words
Canada - one of the few countries previously in line with Australia's opposition to the international Green Climate Fund - now appears to have changed its mind, with Tony Abbott's close friend prime minister Stephen Harper saying he is preparing to make a contribution.
Abbott has defied global pressure to commit to the fund, designed to help poor countries adapt to climate change, because Australia is already spending $2.5bn on its domestic Direct Action fund and providing $10bn in capital to a so-called "green bank" - which he is trying to abolish.
World leaders forced Australia to include stronger language about the Green Climate Fund in the G20 communique - and during the summit Barack Obama pledged the US would contribute $3bn to it and the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, offered $1.5bn. But soon after the conference was over Abbott indicated it would make no immediate difference to Australia's position.
On Sunday Harper said Canada was preparing to make a contribution to the UN fund, the Globe and Mail and other Canadian media outlets reported. He did not nominate an amount.
Last November, Abbott and Harper "made history" by jointly dissenting from support for the Green Climate Fund in a communique from the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.
Speaking after a meeting on Sunday night with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, Abbott said Direct Action - which funds Australia's domestic emissions reduction, not international efforts - was already "quite a substantial fund". He also cited the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which he is committed to abolish.
"We also have a Clean Energy Finance Corporation which was established by the former government and there is $10bn in capital which has been allocated to this," he said. "In addition to those two funds a proportion of our overseas aid, particularly in the Pacific, is allocated for various environmental schemes including schemes to deal with climate change. So, we are doing a very great deal and I suppose given what we are doing we don't intend, at this time, to do more."
Environment minister Greg Hunt tried to compare Obama's $3bn commitment to the international fund to be spent in poor countries with Australia's $2.5bn spending on its own domestic policy, saying that if the Direct Action fund was implemented in the US "on a like for like basis it would be the equivalent of a $25bn fund".
Neither Abbott nor Hunt ruled out making a contribution to the fund at some time in the future and it is understood the Department of Foreign Affairs, which leads Australia's international climate negotiations, has been considering a donation. The fund is seen as a critical part of a successful outcome at the United Nations Paris conference next year, which will discuss a global emissions pact to take effect after 2020.
But Abbott's trenchant opposition to the fund is seen as an impediment to any contribution. He has publicly disparaged it as an international "Bob Brown bank" - another reference to the CEFC, which he wants to abolish but he also cites as evidence of Australia's climate action.
As revealed by Guardian Australia, Abbott told world leaders at the Brisbane summit that as the leader of a major coal producer he would be "standing up for coal".
The communique references demanded by other leaders, including Obama, were reluctantly accepted by Australia at the last minute. They included a call for contributions to the fund and for the "phasing out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies".
An EU spokesman reportedly described the climate negotiations with Australia as being like "trench warfare". Other officials said it had been "very difficult" and protracted.
Speaking to the media after the summit, Abbott downplayed the importance of the fund. He took a similar line on the greenhouse reduction pledges unveiled by Obama and the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, immediately before the summit.
He said all nations "support strong action ... to address climate change", but added: "We are all going to approach this in our own way and there are a range of [climate] funds which are there."
Obama and the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, both urged G20 countries to contribute to the Green Climate Fund. In the end, at Australia's insistence, the communique called for contributions to financing funds "such as the Green Climate Fund".
Hunt suggested a regional rainforest fund, to which Australia recently pledged $6m, could substitute for contributions to the Green Climate Fund.
LOAD-DATE: November 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
280 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 17, 2014 Monday 2:00 AM GMT
More than 22,000 species feature in conservationists' 'under threat' list;
Japanese yen for Pacific bluefin tuna, climate change and demand for minerals from animals' habitats put species at risk
BYLINE: Adam Vaughan
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 535 words
A fluorescent pink slug and one of the world's most expensive fish are among the species included in an update to the list of the world's most threatened animals.
Mankind's demand for the wood, stone and oil where the species live, as well as using them for food, is blamed for pushing many towards the brink of extinction, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature said in its authoritative Red List update.
The Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis), a meaty fish prized in Japan that was previously listed as a species of least concern, has seen numbers decline by up to a third over the past two decades leading it to be reclassified as vulnerable. The main threat to the species is its value as sashimi - one fish can fetch more than $100,000 (£64,000).
The appetite for sashimi is also blamed for the decline of the Chinese pufferfish (Takifugu chinensis), one of the world's most toxic fish. It is now classified as critically endangered, the Red List's most severe listing and the final step before extinction.
The American eel is upgraded to endangered status because of the decline of its Japanese counterpart, leading Asian markets to look elsewhere. The Anguilla rostrata can sell for as much as $2,200 per pound, and demand is such that a 2012 report said stocks were at "historically low levels". The remaining eels are also threatened by poaching.
The updated list reveals that the world's biggest earwig - the St Helena Giant Earwig (Labidura herculeana) measuring up to 80mm long compared to the European earwig's 12-15mm - has become extinct. It used to live on a protected part of the island, but the stones that it lived under have been removed for use in construction. Mice and rats also contributed to its extinction.
Julia Marton-Lefèvre, the IUCN's director general, said: "Each update of the IUCN Red List makes us realise that our planet is constantly losing its incredible diversity of life, largely due to our destructive actions to satisfy our growing appetite for resources.
"But we have scientific evidence that protected areas can play a central role in reversing this trend. Experts warn that threatened species poorly represented in protected areas are declining twice as fast as those which are well represented."
In Australia, the Kaputar Pink Slug (Triboniophorus) lives solely on a mountaintop in New South Wales. It already lives at the highest levels of Mount Kaputar. Conservationists fear that it will have nowhere to go as climate change causes temperatures to rise.
Charopa lafargei, a Malaysian snail, was only identified by scientists this year, but is already listed at the highest threat level. It is named after Lafarge, the company that works the cement quarry near its limestone hill habitat.
Of the 76,199 species assessed in the Red List update, published at a conservation summit in Sydney, 22,413 are ranked as threatened to varying degrees.
Two amphibians are among the list's few winners. Andinobates dorisswansonae and Andinobates tolimensis, frogs found only in the Colombian Andes, are both classified downwards in threat level because of protections brought in for the tract of forest where they live, which the IUCN described as well-protected.
LOAD-DATE: November 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
281 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 17, 2014 Monday 1:00 AM GMT
China and Australia to sign trade agreement - politics live;
With the G20 now done and dusted, MPs gather in Canberra for a special sitting of the parliament. China's president Xi Jinping will address the parliament, and ink a new free trade deal with Canberra. All the developments, live
BYLINE: Katharine Murphy
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 3643 words
block-time published-time 12.00pm AEST
Merkel is moving now to questions at the Lowy Institute. Before the lecture this morning, the chancellor made a visit to NICTA - Australia's Information and Communications Technology Research Centre of Excellence. Thanks to Annie O'Rourke for this picture.
@murpharoo Angela Merkel enjoying a tour of @NICTA earlier this morning pic.twitter.com/tRmUeqo6d4
- Annie O'Rourke (@89oEast) November 17, 2014
First question to the chancellor is how do we influence Vladimir Putin, given that the sanctions seem only to have driven up his popularity?
Q: What is the best combination of carrots and sticks to influence Mr Putin?
Merkel:
We need to have the necessary patience for an uphill battle.
We have to prove that we've learned something from the past. And since you cannot make any safe predictions as to the future, it's not all that easy to find the right course of action. We know that you cannot and should not be too peaceful. You should take it seriously when somebody sort of threatens you, or keep a very close eye on the actions of others, and we know that even small conflicts may very well turn into bigger complications very quickly.
She says the EU needs to stand together and stand with the US.
The biggest danger is that we allow ourselves to be separate, to be divided, that a wedge will be driven between us. So it was in Europe and in the world, so it was so important for the US and Europe to pursue the same course, for a very long time.
block-time published-time 11.52am AEST
Merkel moves from diplomacy to economic consolidation after the global financial crisis, and to geopolitical security. The German chancellor says Europe needs structural reform and Europe needs to go for growth. In terms of security, Europe has an interest in seeing the states of Asia rise peacefully and without any sort of sharp ruptures. Merkel lists the current challenges before the world: Ukraine, the Middle Eastern conflagration, ebola. She says economic integration imposes broader obligations - and like minded countries need to work together.
Merkel:
Globalisation is no longer merely an economic phenomenon. It has turned all of us into neighbours. More and more countries see themselves facing the same kind of challenges and for Europe and Germany, it's most important to have a partner in Australia here in this Asia Pacific region that shares the same values that we have.
Climate change too. (Here's looking at you, Tony.)
If we do not put a brake on climate change, it will have devastating consequences for all of us, there will be more storms, there will be more heat and catastrophes more doubts, there will be a rising sea levels an increasing floods. Climate change knows no borders. It will not stop before the Pacific Islands and the whole of the international community here has to shoulder a responsibility to bring about a sustainable development.
Our ambition is to come for - to - an agreement that is binding for all states. Only in this way can global warming be actually limited to 2 degrees celsius. So all countries are called upon to announce their national contributions for this world climate agreement until the first quarter of 2015 at the very latest. Only in this way will we be able to prepare the conference in Paris in an appropriate way and be able to achieve a substantial result there.
block-time published-time 11.38am AEST
The German chancellor Angela Merkel has stepped up at the Lowy Institute in Sydney. The audience have their translation head sets on. Merkel's address this morning is about European diplomacy - the structures imposed after two world wars to promote consensus. Shifting power struggles and alliances, she says, have been replaced by the rule of law. There are, sadly, exceptions. The chancellor is looking at you, Vladimir.
Merkel:
And yet we have to see that in Europe too there are still forces that refuse to accept the concept of mutual respect and of settling conflicts with democratic and legal means. Those that put the right of the stronger before the right of the strength of the law. And this is exactly what happened with the annexation of the Crimea, it is a clear violation of international law and that was carried out by Russia at the beginning of this year. Russia in this way violates territorial integrity and the sovereignty of Ukraine as a state, a neighbouring state is labelled and seen as part of a sphere of influence. After the horror of two world wars and the end of the Cold War, this caused the whole of the European peaceful order into question.
block-time published-time 11.30am AEST
Mike Bowers has been down shooting pool pictures for the Xi visit. Here's a sample.
Might be just me but I did a small recoil at the grip and grin. More like a grimace from the prime minister.
The President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping arrives at a bi-lateral meeting with Prime Minister Tony Abbott in Parliament House Canberra this morning, Monday 17th November 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
Well, hello there.
The President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping arrives at a bi-lateral meeting with Prime Minister Tony Abbott in Parliament House Canberra this morning, Monday 17th November 2014. Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 11.24am AEST
Some pictures now. Earlier I mentioned there were duelling protesters down the front waiting for president Xi.
Let's call this officialdom versus dissent, a case study.
Protesters gather outside Parliament House in Canberra, Monday, Nov. 17, 2014. The Chinese President Xi Jinping, who attended the G20 Leaders Summit in Brisbane, will be delivering an address to the Australian parliament today. Photograph: ALAN PORRITT/AAPIMAGE
block-time published-time 11.18am AEST
Meanwhile, over in the senate, the sometime/kinda/sorta PUP senator Jacqui Lambie is wedged deep in struggle street. She's voting against everything until the diggers get a better pay rise. I think. The sharp end is a bit lost on the various evils inflicted on the populace by everyone apart from Lambie.
Ah, yes, that is the point. She's calling for a cross bench revolution - don't vote for anything until the Coalition revokes its disgusting pay offer. (Suck on that Cliev.)
Lambie is trembling with rage. She either has the flu or she's about to burst into tears.
block-time published-time 11.11am AEST
Aren't we all, Intern.
I'm excited. #LowyLecture#Lowypic.twitter.com/CL63cx5Svh
- ABC News Intern (@ABCnewsIntern) November 17, 2014
block-time published-time 11.09am AEST
Meanwhile, in another venue, in another city, with considerably less contention.
Appropriately orderly and efficient queue for #AngelaMerkel@murpharoo She speaking in 45 mins pic.twitter.com/B1mluNBJy6
- Michael Safi (@safimichael) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 11.08am AEST
Looking past Alan's faux pub test to the practical sensitivities
To organising principles.
Whether you buy Alan's pub test or not, the broadcaster's encounter with the prime minister this morning does underscore the point there are political sensitivities around free trade deals in general, and this free trade deal in particular.
Jones spent time on Chinese investment in his interview today with Abbott. We of course don't yet have the detail associated with this trade pact, but the non-official official word for some time has been that China will get the same deal as the United States, Korea and Japan. That means the investment threshold attracting scrutiny by the Foreign Investment Review Board (Firb) will be increased from $248m to $1bn. That's for private investment. Folks who follow these debates closely will know that the bulk of in-bound investment from China is from state owned enterprises (SOEs), not from private firms. The early word from Camp Abbott had been that SOEs would get a better deal in this FTA, essentially because Beijing wanted a better deal. But more recent reports suggest that's not the case. Currently all SOE investment is screened by Firb.
In no particular order, these are some of the political sensitivities related to an FTA with China:
Foreign investment regulations, particularly in farmland and agri-businesses (because the National party gets very antsy about this issue)
People movement and temporary migration provisions (because the ALP and the union movement are very antsy about this issue)
Copyright and predatory pricing (because business is very antsy about the propsect of China dumping goods in Australia below cost)
Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions (because these are the new battlefront in the age old trade liberalisation versus sovereignty argument)
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.13am AEST
block-time published-time 10.46am AEST
As Alan performances go, that one was only four stars. He did leave some headroom there. It is helpful though, as an organising principle. More of that shortly.
Live pictures coming through now of president Xi coming in to the prime minister's office. The senate is also sitting, taking care of business. One of the social services bills is being debated.
block-time published-time 10.30am AEST
Alan is refusing to desist from the fast breathing.
This is a dog, this China deal. A dawg.
Abbott:
Alan, look, many voters disagree with many things governments do.
Alan has achieved his objective and is now bored. He dismisses the prime minister who he's sure is very busy and has things to do. Alan always has things to do, obviously. Let the record show, that so dismissed, the prime minister moved on.
block-time published-time 10.25am AEST
Jones:
I've had this out with Andrew Robb, he thinks I'm a nutter.
The prime minister :
Well I'm not sure he does.
He can respectfully disagree without thinking people are nutters.
block-time published-time 10.23am AEST
Jones points out that Abbott can't buy a coal mine in China either. Another aspiration dashed.
Abbott points out to Alan that in a communist regime, ownership is actually complex business.
Alan doesn't want reason cluttering up this conversation.
Jones:
PM you don't have a mandate for this!
Actually, it was [sharp intake of breath] PM, YOU DON'T HAVE A MANDATE FOR THIS.
block-time published-time 10.16am AEST
Back now to the pub test, because Alan hasn't finished with that.
This FTA with China, that's failed the pub test. They aren't swallowing this in the pubs, Alan says.
Jones:
Q: To win an election, you have to pass the pub test. Now I can tell you the board here this morning is in meltdown on the open line. Why can't we see this free trade agreement?
Abbott, (periodically):
Uh huh.
Jones:
Q: China is giving us nothing. The dairy farms are owned by China. By this time next week who is going to own little Tasmania?
Abbott:
Well, Alan..
Jones:
Q: Can Tony Abbott buy a farm in China?
Abbott:
Err..
Jones:
Q: The answer is no.
block-time published-time 10.09am AEST
Alan never lets incoherence blunt his natural vehemence. Jones tells the prime minister global warming is a hoax and wind turbines are a fake.
Jones:
Q: Doesn't economic growth start at home?
Abbott:
Well, it does Alan.
(After a suitable interval.)
Abbott:
I can't work miracles Alan.
Jones wants to know why a wind turbine manufacturer from Qatar gets a subsidy and the working stiff doesn't get a subsidy. He wants to know why there isn't more coal worship. The prime minister points out he has been engaged in coal worship. Yes, but why isn't that taking off, Alan wonders. The left and the Abbott haters, that's why. And that meaningless climate agreement Barack Obama signed with President Xi. That's why. The eternal why.
block-time published-time 9.59am AEST
Alan Jones to Tony Abbott: you don't pass the pub test
Alan is evidently unhappy that we spent a whole lot of money on a summit in Brisbane that achieved nothing.
The prime minister is unhappy that he chose Jones for this morning's fireside chat because this interview is not going to plan and we are only five minutes in.
Jones declares that Abbott - a person he's known for thousands of years - does not pass the pub test.
Neither does anything that comes out of his mouth.
Jones:
People listening to you, because my real concern here is a lot of this does not pass the pub test. And I suppose as someone who has known you for thousands of years - you don't pass the pub test on some of these things too.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.00am AEST
block-time published-time 9.51am AEST
I'll come back to specific FTA issues, but first, back to Alan. I've only just hit the opening editorial set up from Jones, but it's clear already this one's a keeper. This will be full frontal populism.
Jones suggests that the G20 meeting in Brisbane is the only time in history where a coherent agenda has been presented. Only time in history, because let's face it, the rest of the world is completely incompetent.
Jones:
France - no leadership at all.
Hopeless.
Gems to follow, very shortly.
block-time published-time 9.42am AEST
One useful thing to wrap our mind around before things get brisk today is - who is our visitor? Where does he sit on the spectrum of Chinese leadership?
The Xi slogan in China has been "Chinese dream." Analysts are still coming to terms with what that means in a practical sense, but much of the reporting about China's leader suggests he's a nationalist.
Here are some helpful readings.
From the New York Times : Xi as conservative, leftist, nationalist.
Mr. Xi's hard line has disappointed Chinese liberals, some of whom once hailed his rise to power as an opportunity to push for political change after a long period of stagnation. Instead, Mr. Xi has signaled a shift to a more conservative, traditional leftist stance with his "rectification" campaign to ensure discipline and conspicuous attempts to defend the legacy of Mao Zedong.
From The Economist: on Xi's "Chinese dream" - a creatively ambiguous marker of generational change
Flanked by six dour-looking, dark-clad colleagues from the Politburo's standing committee, Mr Xi told a gaggle of press and museum workers that the "greatest Chinese dream" was the "great revival of the Chinese nation". Nationalists see their own dreams validated. To them the tall and portly Mr Xi represents a new vigour in Chinese politics after Mr Hu's studied greyness. His talk of China's revival plays to their sense that China has a rightful place at the top of the global pecking-order.
block-time published-time 9.29am AEST
There is much pomp planned of course for Xi Jinping's visit to Canberra today.
For folks who like to plan, and have a low tolerance for pomp - the business end of today is this afternoon rather than this morning. The Chinese president's address to parliament is mid afternoon, 3.35pm; as is the press conference with Tony Abbott, which is expected at 4.30pm. I'm glad of the slow burn - it means more time to set up the substance of the day properly - a rare luxury in this format.
block-time published-time 9.15am AEST
Speaking of unhappy, as I mentioned to you earlier, Sydney broadcaster Alan Jones sounded distinctly unhappy about the China FTA in the tail end of the interview with the prime minister that I referenced first up on Politics Live this morning. Frequent listeners to Jones would not be shocked by that development.
I'll chase up more of that when I can.
Down the front of parliament house right now the official Chinese welcoming party - those folks who turned up 'spontaneously' at the airport to welcome president Xi last night - are facing off against a bunch of Falun Gong folks.
The sanctioned welcomers have a talent for placing themselves in the live TV pictures.
block-time published-time 8.52am AEST
Back to hosing out the venue after the G20.
Oh dear. Safe to conclude either:
1. The prime minister is unhappy that the US president Barack Obama brought climate change to Brisbane when he was meant to be fascinated by jobs and growth; or
2. The Australian's Greg Sheridan is unhappy on the prime minister's behalf.
Greg Sheridan:
It's a strange way to treat a friend but it is all of a piece, sadly, with Obama's presidential style, especially as the power ebbs from him in the dying days of his reign. The damage may not be long-lasting because the US president's remarks bore little relation to anything he can deliver or will do. Instead, they reprise the most ineffably capricious and inconsequential moments in the Obama presidency: grand gestures, soaring visions, which never actually get implemented in the real world. Obama went out of his way to imply, in the most politically damaging fashion he could, that Australia's efforts on climate change were negligible and compared poorly with America's. In fact, Australia's efforts on greenhouse gas reduction are almost identical with those of the US.
block-time published-time 8.40am AEST
Poor old Barnaby can't share a word, but here's the FTA lowdown courtesy of the toplines various secret squirrels have shared with various scribes.
The Australian tells usTony Abbott has won a "dramatic increase in market access for Australian farmers, services and manufacturers in a trade deal worth at least $18 billion over a decade that maintains full scrutiny of investments by Chinese state-owned enterprises."
The Australian Financial Review tells us service providers "have won unprecedented access to Chinese markets under the Australia-China free trade agreement, which will liberate more than 90% of Australian exports from tariffs over the next four years."
We'll tease out various FTA issues here - policy issues, and political implications and consequences - throughout the day.
block-time published-time 8.17am AEST
The agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce is on the ABC's AM program, speaking about the looming free trade agreement that will be unveiled this afternoon.
Joyce informs his host Chris Uhlmann he has the FTA text in front of him, but he can't possibly tell us what it says. Joyce invokes a folksy but not terribly conprehensible Christmas tree analogy. Then he tells the truth. He says if he spills the beans, it's back to the backbench for Barnaby. Or perhaps he'll be quarantined at the airport as an ebola risk. Happy days. There's no B in team.
block-time published-time 8.09am AEST
Good morning to Mr Bowers, who was at RAAF Fairbairn last night to welcome president Xi Jinping to the Australian capital.
With a few folks who just spontaneously turned up with very big flags.
Supporters outnumbered the protestors for arrival of the President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping and his wife Madam Peng Liyuan at RAAF Fairbairn in Canberra this evening, Sunday 16th November 2014. Photograph by Mike Bowers Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia The President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping arrives with his wife Mada, Peng Liyuan at RAAF Fairfairn in Canberra. Sunday 16th November 2014. Photograph by Mike Bowers Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 7.57am AEST
Good morning and welcome to the Monday after the Friday, Saturday and Sunday before. In Brisbane they are packing up the party pies and the cameo koalas and the shirtfronts. Australian politics and the G20 folks who just don't want to go home yet are currently making their way to Canberra because too much summiting is barely enough.
It's one of those mornings where the events of the past few days are in the eye of the beholder.
If you glance at The Courier Mail, Tony Abbott wasn't shirtfronted by the US president over climate change (which was the weekend consensus elsewhere) - Tony was actually the shirtfronter of the US president.
Bad Barack. Bad, bad Barack.
" @wrongdorey : @couriermailpic.twitter.com/BICmfxjPMd " Am I reading this right? Abbott didn't shirtfront Putin, but he did yell at Obama?
- George Megalogenis (@GMegalogenis) November 16, 2014
But if you read the LA Times, the prime minister's performance at the G20 was more Clearasil than shirtfont.
Occasionally, there's an awkward, pimply youth moment so embarrassing that it does sting. Like when 19 of the world's most important leaders visit for a global summit and prime minister Tony Abbott opens their retreat Saturday with a whinge (Aussie for whine) about his doomed efforts to get his fellow Australians to pay $7 to see a doctor.
Moving forward.
The prime minister has stopped by 2GB this morning to wrap up the G20 weekend and point triumphantly forward (I've just caught the tail end of this conversation, so sadly I've missed the advertorial for digestion aids that normally sets up a prime ministerial interview) - Alan Jones seems in a terrible tizz about the free trade deal with China.
Alan's voice has climbed several octaves.
Jones:
It's going to be signed before we see it!
(Well, yes, Alan. That's how things tends to go: secret until public. Fortunately the government has 'helped' by leaking much of the bits and pieces.) The prime minister sounds like you sound when you've clenched your jaw in order to prevent unseemly words escaping from your lips.
It's combat everywhere, actually. The environment minister Greg Hunt is on ABC Radio National Breakfast dressing down host Fran Kelly for climate change related thought crimes. Very touchy.
Anyway, strap on your bike helmets. It's going to be a lively day. We will wind, elegantly, out of Brisbane, and leap forward with Beijing. The lawn mowers are whirring downstairs in preparation for today's visit to Canberra by president Xi Jinping. Various pomps and circumstances will be followed by signatures on a premable to a bilateral free trade pact. I'll be covering all that live.
The Politics Live thread is open for your business. I'll fire up the Twits in a moment, and you can reach me there @murpharoo and the man with the lens @mpbowers
LOAD-DATE: November 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
282 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 17, 2014 Monday 12:58 AM GMT
G20 and Beauty and the Geek do battle for best televised humiliation;
Reality TV has not hogged all the public shaming this past week. G20 served up news and nail-biting mortification in one go
BYLINE: Jazz Twemlow
SECTION: TELEVISION & RADIO
LENGTH: 645 words
Thank goodness TV execs keep finding new ways to humiliate people or there'd be nothing on the box. We'd have to consume a never-ending barrage of facts that served no other purpose than to expand our knowledge of the known universe, and where's the fun in that?
You can't set a black hole a meaninglessly degrading challenge. Unless that Philae probe hacks the comet's iCloud storage and publishes compromising nudie comet pics, few earthlings will turn their gaze from Colonoscopy Idol, or whatever else it is they're watching.
Proudly slinging humiliation garbage directly into our willing, open mouths is Beauty and the Geek (Channel 7), the show for anyone cursed with immortality who has watched everything else that exists, even all the videos on YouTube's vibrating buttock channel otherwise known as Vevo.
In Thursday's episode, the beauties are quizzed on their knowledge of popular animal idioms. Their reward for getting answers right? Having to eat the animal in question - or at least part of it. As they gulp down fish eyes, meal worms and a pig's ear, I wonder how exactly this is meant to encourage them to be nerdier or to study more, given that every time they use an idiom from now on, they'll have a vomit reflex.
But don't worry. To balance things out, one of the geeks is stripped naked and waxed. Well, not totally naked. Someone kindly drapes a token wisp of cloth over his geeky genitals with all the modesty-protecting effectiveness of a beer mat on a whale's groin. This human sacrifice is then put in an upright tent and sprayed with fake tan, a pointless addition as the makeover also involves a wardrobe reboot.
This Adonis emerges in appropriately fashionable attire, the onlookers blissfully unaware of the bronzed, hairless, Teflon-smooth human trapped underneath them. As if we didn't know already, the ritualistic nudity and Kardashian-beating close-ups of his arse crack were for our giggly titillation, nothing more.
Should you miss the next Beauty and the Geek episode, recreate the experience by cramming your penis into a pistachio shell and painting yourself orange. Ladies, nibble on some poached dogs' nostrils. Either way, make sure the majority of society is laughing at you.
From geeks to G20
Fortunately, the past week has not confined televisual humiliation to the kind of shows that make me pray Skynet sends a T-800 back to snuff out John Logie Baird. Coverage of the G20 in Brisbane has meant you can watch the news and get your fix of nail-biting public mortification all in one go.
Thanks to the Coalition's ideological fear of discussing climate change at the G20 (seriously, did Tony Abbott fall down a well while playing hide and seek as a kid before thousands of climate scientists flew into his face?), pretty much every foreign leader who's managed to learn a fact during their career has broadcast climate-conscious speeches that make Australia look like a freshly waxed geek sporting a shrink-wrapped crotch.
Somewhere along the line, there was a strange assumption that limiting mention of climate change to one small paragraph in a communique would control world leaders' brains. Unfortunately for Australia, Barack Obama proved document-based mind control is not possible and mentioned climate change anyway, as did David Cameron.
By the time Joe Hockey took to Insiders to reject, like an addict in denial, that global warming would impact the economy, G20 was on track to become a superpower intervention: "Look, Australia, we've been talking. We think you have a carbon problem." Now, there's a TV show I'd watch: Celebrity Carbon Rehab.
By the time Tony Abbott said he was "standing up for coal", I was happy the G20 doesn't run all year. You get the impression that if the Titanic were sinking and world leaders were arranging lifeboats, Tony Abbott would be the only one wanting to discuss damage to the iceberg.
LOAD-DATE: November 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
283 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 17, 2014 Monday
Late Edition - Final
Partisanship Breaks the Government
BYLINE: By CHARLES M. BLOW
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; OP-ED COLUMNIST; Pg. 25
LENGTH: 822 words
This could be a rather heated winter. All three branches of government are on course to collide over partisan politics, constitutional authority and scope of power, particularly as vested in the executive branch.
The president has wasted no time moving beyond the Democrats' midterm defeats. He is setting about ensuring his legacy. His advisers say he feels liberated by not having to worry about any more congressional elections.
He has secured a historic climate change agreement with China that John Boehner called part of the president's ''job-crushing policies'' and his ''crusade against affordable, reliable energy.''
President Obama went further on Saturday, signaling that he will soon announce ''that the United States will contribute $3 billion to a new international fund intended to help the world's poorest countries address the effects of climate change,'' according to The Times.
Obama has also called on the Federal Communications Commission to adopt net-neutrality rules that Ted Cruz called ''Obamacare for the Internet.''
But the tipping point will likely come when the president takes executive action on immigration, which, according to reports, could protect up to five million unauthorized immigrants from deportation. Republicans are beside themselves at the prospect.
Amnesty! Out-and-out lawlessness! Shredding the Constitution! No claim -- and no recourse -- is out of bounds, it seems.
Many conservatives, like Rush Limbaugh, are demanding another government shutdown to stop it. Others, like Charles Krauthammer, have suggested that Obama's actions on immigration might be ''an impeachable offense.''
The grown-ups on the right -- to the degree such people exist -- know full well that shutdowns and impeachment proceedings are suicidal, but such is the political blood lust on that end of the spectrum that one can't be sure that cooler heads will prevail over hot ones.
Short of those two nearly nuclear options, John Boehner is reportedly considering suing the president over his planned action on immigration.
This is what the G.O.P. base wants: a fight. According to last week's report from the Pew Research Center, Republicans, by a margin of more than two to one, want Republican leaders to ''stand up to Obama, even if less gets done in Washington,'' as if it were possible for this do-nothing Congress to do less.
Congressional Republicans have been sent to Washington with a mandate not so much to conduct business but rather to collect a bounty, to do what they promised and what their supporters expect: Stop Obama at any cost and at every turn, to erase his name or at least put an asterisk by it.
If the speaker should file such a suit, it could drag the Supreme Court into this partisan drama.
But it seems the court isn't waiting for that. It has already thrust itself into the partisan fray by, to the surprise of many, taking up yet another challenge to the Affordable Care Act. This one, like the last, could prove fatal to the law.
It centers on the question of whether people who signed up through the federal exchanges are eligible for subsidies or if those subsidies are only available to people signing up through exchanges set up by states, something many Republican-led states refused to do.
Some have called this ambiguity little more than a typo in a voluminous bill. Linda Greenhouse, my Times colleague and expert interpreter of all things Supreme Court, called the decision to take the case ''worse'' than the court's ruling on Bush v. Gore, as well as ''profoundly depressing,'' and suggested that the court is beginning to look evermore like ''just a collection of politicians in robes.''
But the typo defense is complicated by the comments of an architect of the law, Jonathan Gruber, a health economist. In 2012, he said, ''if you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits.'' This suggested that the clause was no accident, or at least one he and others found fortuitous.
While these battles may offer some ephemeral partisan gain -- mostly for Republicans -- they will suppress support for all three branches of government and further diminish public faith in the efficacy of government as a whole.
According to a June poll by Gallup, ''Americans' confidence in all three branches of the U.S. government has fallen, reaching record lows for the Supreme Court (30 percent) and Congress (7 percent), and a six-year low for the presidency (29 percent).'' While the blood sport of these clashes is likely to enthrall pundits and policy wonks, I fear that it won't be good for the republic -- particularly Democrats.
Liberal ideology depends on a productive federal government; conservatism rises when that government is crippled.
Republicans, in all their cynicism, are increasing their efforts to break the government.
Isn't America great?
I invite you to join me on Facebook and follow me on Twitter, or e-mail me at chblow@nytimes.com
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/opinion/charles-m-blow-partisanship-breaks-the-government.html
LOAD-DATE: November 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Op-Ed
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
284 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Dot Earth)
November 17, 2014 Monday
Peru Prepares to Host Climate Talks as its Indigenous Forest Defenders Die
BYLINE: ANDREW C. REVKIN
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 1289 words
HIGHLIGHT: The resource rush on Peru’s Amazon frontier is exacting a rising toll on indigenous communities, a rights group warns.
[Note: I am traveling to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to help run "Energy for Tomorrow," a conference organized by the International New York Times, so comment moderation may be spotty.]
The nonprofit group Global Witness makes some valuable points in a new report offering Peru a path to cut the violence on its poorly governed resource frontier in the Amazon. The report, "Peru's Deadly Environment," is being released today at a Manhattan event organized with the Alexander Soros Foundation.
The foundation's founder, Alexander Soros, was scheduled to give a posthumous award for environmental activism to Edwin Chota, a prominent anti-logging campaigner, and three colleagues who were murdered earlier this year.
Diana Rios Rengifo, a daughter of one of the murdered men, was scheduled to accept the award on behalf of her father and their Ashéninka community, which has been trying to gain title to its lands for a decade.
"They may have killed my father and his friends, but I am still here, and I will continue to fight for the rights to our territories and for the rights of the other indigenous peoples of Peru," she said in a statement prepared before the event.
The report is aimed at boosting pressure on the Peruvian government before negotiators from around the world meet in Lima in talks aimed at completing a new climate agreement next year.
Here's the executive summary of the Global Witness report, followed by a set of laudable, albeit ambitious, recommendations:
The world's attention will be on Peru this December, as governments from 1951 countries convene in the capital Lima for the 2014 UN Climate Conference. As delegates negotiate a global deal aimed at averting catastrophic climate change, a parallel human rights crisis is unfolding in Peru and around the world. An increasing number of people on the frontline of the fight to protect the environment are being killed.
The recent murders of Peruvian indigenous leader Edwin Chota and three of his colleagues, who died trying to defend their land in the Amazon from illegal logging, are part of a global trend in violent crime against activists. Global Witness research, published earlier this year, shows that on average, two such 'environmental and land' defenders are being killed each week around the world, a rate that has been increasing in recent years. Governments aren't doing enough to stop it. As global demand for natural resources intensifies, more and more ordinary people are having to defend their rights to land and the environment from corporate or state abuse.
Many of the killings stem from conflicts over the ownership and use of land, particularly in the face of expanded mining and logging activities. An estimated 93% of extractive and agriculture projects happen on land that is already inhabited. Our research found that Peru is the world's fourth deadliest country to be an environmental or land defender, behind Brazil, Honduras and the Philippines. Between 2002 and 2014, at least 57 such activists were killed in Peru. More than half died during the last four years.
In few countries is the critical role of leaders like Edwin Chota in the fight to prevent environmental destruction more apparent than in Peru. The country is home to an area of rainforest roughly the size of Germanyand Norway combined. The destruction of tropical forests around the world is one of the largest sources of emissions contributing to climate change, and deforestation rates in Peru doubled in 2012 from the previous year, accounting for nearly half its annual greenhouse gas emissions.
Peru's forests are home to more than 300,000 indigenous peoples, such as Chota's Ashéninka group, who claim rights to their traditional lands.
The realization of indigenous land rights has proven to be one of the most effective ways to curb deforestation, but communities are not receiving the support and protections they need. There are currently over 20 million hectares of indigenous land claims in the Peruvian Amazon that the government has failed to process. Although Peru has made commitments to protect its rainforest, stating its intention to reduce net deforestation to zero by 2021 and recently signing a US $300 million agreement with the Government of Norway in support of its ambitions, progress will not be achieved unless the underlying governance issues that plague the forest sector are addressed. Major challenges include lack of law enforcement, unchecked illegal logging, insecure land tenure and corruption. Illegal logging is worth 1.5 times the value of legal timber exports in Peru, whilst corruption among public officials is endemic in the Amazon region.
Other threats to forest protection from infrastructure and mining projects are marked by secretive decision-making and a lack of consultation with affected communities. Recent moves by Peru's government to weaken environmental and land rights legislation have raised the stakes further for activists. Before his death, Edwin Chota repeatedly called for recognition of his community's land rights and for government action to prevent illegal logging, but his calls went unheard. Unless more is done to address the underlying factors that led to Chota's death and the impunity enjoyed by those behind his killing, environmental leaders like him will continue to be at risk. Peru's hosting of the UN climate conference next month presents an opportunity for the country to demonstrate its commitment to protecting human rights and the environment. The lives of citizens protecting their land and environment may depend on it. Peru must seize this opportunity; the government and its policies will be in the international spotlight in December, it must not return to the shadowsonce that spotlight has moved.
Implement and respect all of the provisions set out in the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders,16 the Organization of American States' resolution on human rights defenders,17 and relevant domestic laws to protect human rights and environmental advocates like Edwin Chota, and hold perpetrators of violence and intimidation to account.
Revoke law 30151 that weakens protections for peaceful protestors by extending immunity to Peru's security agencies for the use of force in certain situations.
Process pending indigenous land claims that cover over 20 million hectares of forest, and realize the rights of Peru's indigenous communities as enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Improve coordinated law enforcement efforts to tackle illegal logging in the forest sector, by assigning more resources to the Multi-Sectoral Commission against Illegal Logging (CMLTI) and the Regional Environmental Prosecutor's Offices.
Investigate the alleged corrupt links between public officials and illegal loggers in Ucayali and prosecute where corruption is identified.
Revoke law 3023018 that weakens Peru's environmental protection procedures and institutions, and prioritizes investments in agriculture and the extractive sector over land where there are pending indigenous land claims; strengthen and apply adequate resources to the National Service of Environmental Certification for Sustainable Investments (SENACE), the body entrusted with improving Peru's environmental impact assessment framework.
In light of these recommendations, the international community should publicly call on the Peruvian Government to ensure the protection of environmental and land defenders, bring perpetrators to account and strengthen the country's land rights and environmental procedures and policies in the build up to the 20th UN Climate Conference in Lima.
For more, click back to this recent post: "Can Peru Control the Murderous Resource Rush on its Forest Frontiers?"
LOAD-DATE: November 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
285 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 16, 2014 Sunday 10:15 PM GMT
China and Australia to sign trade agreement - politics live;
With the G20 now done and dusted, MPs gather in Canberra for a special sitting of the parliament. China's president Xi Jinping will address the parliament, and ink a new free trade deal with Canberra. All the developments, live
BYLINE: Katharine Murphy
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 1160 words
block-time published-time 9.15am AEST
Speaking of unhappy, as I mentioned to you earlier, Sydney broadcaster Alan Jones sounded distinctly unhappy about the China FTA in the tail end of the interview with the prime minister that I referenced first up on Politics Live this morning. Frequent listeners to Jones would not be shocked by that development.
I'll chase up more of that when I can.
Down the front of parliament house right now the official Chinese welcoming party - those folks who turned up 'spontaneously' at the airport to welcome president Xi last night - are facing off against a bunch of Falun Gong folks.
The sanctioned welcomers have a talent for placing themselves in the live TV pictures.
block-time published-time 8.52am AEST
Back to hosing out the venue after the G20.
Oh dear. Safe to conclude either:
1. The prime minister is unhappy that the US president Barack Obama brought climate change to Brisbane when he was meant to be fascinated by jobs and growth; or
2. The Australian's Greg Sheridan is unhappy on the prime minister's behalf.
Greg Sheridan:
It's a strange way to treat a friend but it is all of a piece, sadly, with Obama's presidential style, especially as the power ebbs from him in the dying days of his reign. The damage may not be long-lasting because the US president's remarks bore little relation to anything he can deliver or will do. Instead, they reprise the most ineffably capricious and inconsequential moments in the Obama presidency: grand gestures, soaring visions, which never actually get implemented in the real world. Obama went out of his way to imply, in the most politically damaging fashion he could, that Australia's efforts on climate change were negligible and compared poorly with America's. In fact, Australia's efforts on greenhouse gas reduction are almost identical with those of the US.
block-time published-time 8.40am AEST
Poor old Barnaby can't share a word, but here's the FTA lowdown courtesy of the toplines various secret squirrels have shared with various scribes.
The Australian tells usTony Abbott has won a "dramatic increase in market access for Australian farmers, services and manufacturers in a trade deal worth at least $18 billion over a decade that maintains full scrutiny of investments by Chinese state-owned enterprises."
The Australian Financial Review tells us service providers "have won unprecedented access to Chinese markets under the Australia-China free trade agreement, which will liberate more than 90% of Australian exports from tariffs over the next four years."
We'll tease out various FTA issues here - policy issues, and political implications and consequences - throughout the day.
block-time published-time 8.17am AEST
The agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce is on the ABC's AM program, speaking about the looming free trade agreement that will be unveiled this afternoon.
Joyce informs his host Chris Uhlmann he has the FTA text in front of him, but he can't possibly tell us what it says. Joyce invokes a folksy but not terribly conprehensible Christmas tree analogy. Then he tells the truth. He says if he spills the beans, it's back to the backbench for Barnaby. Or perhaps he'll be quarantined at the airport as an ebola risk. Happy days. There's no B in team.
block-time published-time 8.09am AEST
Good morning to Mr Bowers, who was at RAAF Fairbairn last night to welcome president Xi Jinping to the Australian capital.
With a few folks who just spontaneously turned up with very big flags.
Supporters outnumbered the protestors for arrival of the President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping and his wife Madam Peng Liyuan at RAAF Fairbairn in Canberra this evening, Sunday 16th November 2014. Photograph by Mike Bowers Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia The President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping arrives with his wife Mada, Peng Liyuan at RAAF Fairfairn in Canberra. Sunday 16th November 2014. Photograph by Mike Bowers Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 7.57am AEST
Good morning and welcome to the Monday after the Friday, Saturday and Sunday before. In Brisbane they are packing up the party pies and the cameo koalas and the shirtfronts. Australian politics and the G20 folks who just don't want to go home yet are currently making their way to Canberra because too much summiting is barely enough.
It's one of those mornings where the events of the past few days are in the eye of the beholder.
If you glance at The Courier Mail, Tony Abbott wasn't shirtfronted by the US president over climate change (which was the weekend consensus elsewhere) - Tony was actually the shirtfronter of the US president.
Bad Barack. Bad, bad Barack.
" @wrongdorey : @couriermailpic.twitter.com/BICmfxjPMd " Am I reading this right? Abbott didn't shirtfront Putin, but he did yell at Obama?
- George Megalogenis (@GMegalogenis) November 16, 2014
But if you read the LA Times, the prime minister's performance at the G20 was more Clearasil than shirtfont.
Occasionally, there's an awkward, pimply youth moment so embarrassing that it does sting. Like when 19 of the world's most important leaders visit for a global summit and prime minister Tony Abbott opens their retreat Saturday with a whinge (Aussie for whine) about his doomed efforts to get his fellow Australians to pay $7 to see a doctor.
Moving forward.
The prime minister has stopped by 2GB this morning to wrap up the G20 weekend and point triumphantly forward (I've just caught the tail end of this conversation, so sadly I've missed the advertorial for digestion aids that normally sets up a prime ministerial interview) - Alan Jones seems in a terrible tizz about the free trade deal with China.
Alan's voice has climbed several octaves.
Jones:
It's going to be signed before we see it!
(Well, yes, Alan. That's how things tends to go: secret until public. Fortunately the government has 'helped' by leaking much of the bits and pieces.) The prime minister sounds like you sound when you've clenched your jaw in order to prevent unseemly words escaping from your lips.
It's combat everywhere, actually. The environment minister Greg Hunt is on ABC Radio National Breakfast dressing down host Fran Kelly for climate change related thought crimes. Very touchy.
Anyway, strap on your bike helmets. It's going to be a lively day. We will wind, elegantly, out of Brisbane, and leap forward with Beijing. The lawn mowers are whirring downstairs in preparation for today's visit to Canberra by president Xi Jinping. Various pomps and circumstances will be followed by signatures on a premable to a bilateral free trade pact. I'll be covering all that live.
The Politics Live thread is open for your business. I'll fire up the Twits in a moment, and you can reach me there @murpharoo and the man with the lens @mpbowers
LOAD-DATE: November 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
286 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 16, 2014 Sunday 10:00 PM GMT
UK donation to Green Climate Fund gives David Cameron byelection jitters;
Pledge worth hundreds of millions of pounds on day of Rochester vote could hand political ammunition to Ukip
BYLINE: Patrick Wintour
SECTION: POLITICS
LENGTH: 520 words
Britain is due to pledge hundreds of millions of pounds to a new Green Climate Fund in Berlin on the same day as the critical Rochester byelection, threatening to hand political ammunition to Ukip.
David Cameron betrayed anxiety about the coincidence - and its impact on potential Ukip supporters opposed to overseas aid or sceptical of climate change - by refusing to say how much Britain is likely to offer and stressing the funding would come from existing government funds.
He said: "All we have to do now is to decide how much of this already set aside money we put into this specific fund and, as ever, Britain will play its part."
Aware of the mood on his own backbenches, he reiterated: "When we make an announcement it will not be new money, it will be money already set aside for that purpose."
Government sources said the British contribution at the pledging conference is likely to be hundreds of millions, and independent sources said they expected it to reach £1bn.
The fund is designed to help the poorest developing countries adapt to and mitigate climate change, making it easier for them to agree to carbon reduction targets at the Paris conference next spring.
President Barack Obama announced the US would give $3bn (£1.9bn) to the fund, before he called on Saturday for global action to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Japan yesterday pledged $1.5bn, while France and Germany have offered $1bn each, taking the total commitment of nations so far to about $8bn. The fund, set up in 2010, is intended to raise $10bn-$15bn by the end of the month.
The UK has already donated £1.5bn since 2009 to poor countries for climate change adaptation during an initial round of funding. But this new tranche is the first time the government has pledged money to the Green Climate Fund, which is likely to demand much higher spending.
Speaking at Chatham House in London this month, Conservative energy and climate change minister Amber Rudd said the UK would donate "strongly" to the UN's green fund during the pledging session in Berlin.
The government has always said climate change will not comprise more than 10% of the 0.7% of GDP spent on aid. But even that is about £1bn.
The issue of climate change was one of the most contentious at the G20, with the Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, resisting efforts to include any reference to phasing out fossil fuel in the communique, an issue pursued by Barack Obama.
Cameron, close politically to Abbott, avoided criticising the stance of his Australian hosts, saying, though: "Britain comes here with a strong record: the first country in the world to introduce climate change legislation; he first country in the world to introduce a green investment bank; and the first country with the largest offshore wind market in the world."
He said he would not lecture the Australians on what they should do but every country needed to come to the Paris talks with something to offer. Last week, the US and China jointly unveiled a historic commitment, albeit non-binding, to curb carbon emissions that scientists say are primarily responsible for raising the globe's temperature.
LOAD-DATE: November 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
287 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 16, 2014 Sunday 9:52 PM GMT
G20 Brisbane wraps up as Tony Abbott returns to Canberra - politics live;
With the G20 now done and dusted, MPs gather in Canberra for a special sitting of the parliament. China's president Xi Jinping will address the parliament, and ink a new free trade deal with Canberra. All the developments, live
BYLINE: Katharine Murphy
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 1042 words
block-time published-time 8.52am AEST
Back to hosing out the venue after the G20.
Oh dear. Safe to conclude either:
1. The prime minister is unhappy that the US president Barack Obama brought climate change to Brisbane when he was meant to be fascinated by jobs and growth; or
2. The Australian's Greg Sheridan is unhappy on the prime minister's behalf.
Greg Sheridan:
It's a strange way to treat a friend but it is all of a piece, sadly, with Obama's presidential style, especially as the power ebbs from him in the dying days of his reign. The damage may not be long-lasting because the US president's remarks bore little relation to anything he can deliver or will do. Instead, they reprise the most ineffably capricious and inconsequential moments in the Obama presidency: grand gestures, soaring visions, which never actually get implemented in the real world. Obama went out of his way to imply, in the most politically damaging fashion he could, that Australia's efforts on climate change were negligible and compared poorly with America's. In fact, Australia's efforts on greenhouse gas reduction are almost identical with those of the US.
block-time published-time 8.40am AEST
Poor old Barnaby can't share a word, but here's the FTA lowdown courtesy of the toplines various secret squirrels have shared with various scribes.
The Australian tells usTony Abbott has won a "dramatic increase in market access for Australian farmers, services and manufacturers in a trade deal worth at least $18 billion over a decade that maintains full scrutiny of investments by Chinese state-owned enterprises."
The Australian Financial Review tells us service providers "have won unprecedented access to Chinese markets under the Australia-China free trade agreement, which will liberate more than 90% of Australian exports from tariffs over the next four years."
We'll tease out various FTA issues here - policy issues, and political implications and consequences - throughout the day.
block-time published-time 8.17am AEST
The agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce is on the ABC's AM program, speaking about the looming free trade agreement that will be unveiled this afternoon.
Joyce informs his host Chris Uhlmann he has the FTA text in front of him, but he can't possibly tell us what it says. Joyce invokes a folksy but not terribly conprehensible Christmas tree analogy. Then he tells the truth. He says if he spills the beans, it's back to the backbench for Barnaby. Or perhaps he'll be quarantined at the airport as an ebola risk. Happy days. There's no B in team.
block-time published-time 8.09am AEST
Good morning to Mr Bowers, who was at RAAF Fairbairn last night to welcome president Xi Jinping to the Australian capital.
With a few folks who just spontaneously turned up with very big flags.
Supporters outnumbered the protestors for arrival of the President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping and his wife Madam Peng Liyuan at RAAF Fairbairn in Canberra this evening, Sunday 16th November 2014. Photograph by Mike Bowers Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia The President of the Peoples Republic of China Mr Xi Jinping arrives with his wife Mada, Peng Liyuan at RAAF Fairfairn in Canberra. Sunday 16th November 2014. Photograph by Mike Bowers Photograph: Mike Bowers/Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 7.57am AEST
Good morning and welcome to the Monday after the Friday, Saturday and Sunday before. In Brisbane they are packing up the party pies and the cameo koalas and the shirtfronts. Australian politics and the G20 folks who just don't want to go home yet are currently making their way to Canberra because too much summiting is barely enough.
It's one of those mornings where the events of the past few days are in the eye of the beholder.
If you glance at The Courier Mail, Tony Abbott wasn't shirtfronted by the US president over climate change (which was the weekend consensus elsewhere) - Tony was actually the shirtfronter of the US president.
Bad Barack. Bad, bad Barack.
" @wrongdorey : @couriermailpic.twitter.com/BICmfxjPMd " Am I reading this right? Abbott didn't shirtfront Putin, but he did yell at Obama?
- George Megalogenis (@GMegalogenis) November 16, 2014
But if you read the LA Times, the prime minister's performance at the G20 was more Clearasil than shirtfont.
Occasionally, there's an awkward, pimply youth moment so embarrassing that it does sting. Like when 19 of the world's most important leaders visit for a global summit and prime minister Tony Abbott opens their retreat Saturday with a whinge (Aussie for whine) about his doomed efforts to get his fellow Australians to pay $7 to see a doctor.
Moving forward.
The prime minister has stopped by 2GB this morning to wrap up the G20 weekend and point triumphantly forward (I've just caught the tail end of this conversation, so sadly I've missed the advertorial for digestion aids that normally sets up a prime ministerial interview) - Alan Jones seems in a terrible tizz about the free trade deal with China.
Alan's voice has climbed several octaves.
Jones:
It's going to be signed before we see it!
(Well, yes, Alan. That's how things tends to go: secret until public. Fortunately the government has 'helped' by leaking much of the bits and pieces.) The prime minister sounds like you sound when you've clenched your jaw in order to prevent unseemly words escaping from your lips.
It's combat everywhere, actually. The environment minister Greg Hunt is on ABC Radio National Breakfast dressing down host Fran Kelly for climate change related thought crimes. Very touchy.
Anyway, strap on your bike helmets. It's going to be a lively day. We will wind, elegantly, out of Brisbane, and leap forward with Beijing. The lawn mowers are whirring downstairs in preparation for today's visit to Canberra by president Xi Jinping. Various pomps and circumstances will be followed by signatures on a premable to a bilateral free trade pact. I'll be covering all that live.
The Politics Live thread is open for your business. I'll fire up the Twits in a moment, and you can reach me there @murpharoo and the man with the lens @mpbowers
LOAD-DATE: November 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
288 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 16, 2014 Sunday 9:14 PM GMT
Tony Abbott rules out more contributions from Australia to Green Climate Fund;
G20 leaders insisted on stronger language about the fund in summit communique, but Abbott says Australia doesn't intend to do more
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 766 words
Tony Abbott has defied global pressure to commit to the Green Climate Fund, designed to help poor countries adapt to climate change, because Australia is already spending $2.5bn on its domestic Direct Action fund and providing $10bn in capital to a so-called "green bank" - which he is trying to abolish.
World leaders forced Australia to include stronger language about the Green Climate Fund in the G20 communique - Barack Obama pledged the US would contribute $3bn to it and the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, offered $1.5bn - but soon after the conference was over Abbott indicated it wouldn't make any immediate difference to Australia's position.
Speaking after a meeting on Sunday night with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, Abbott said Direct Action was already "quite a substantial fund".
"We also have a Clean Energy Finance Corporation which was established by the former government and there is $10bn in capital which has been allocated to this," he said. "In addition to those two funds a proportion of our overseas aid, particularly in the Pacific, is allocated for various environmental schemes including schemes to deal with climate change. So, we are doing a very great deal and I suppose given what we are doing we don't intend, at this time, to do more."
Abbott told world leaders at the Brisbane summit that as the leader of a major coal producer he would be "standing up for coal".
The communique references demanded by other leaders, including Obama, were reluctantly accepted by Australia at the last minute. They included a call for contributions to the Green Climate Fund that the prime minister has previously derided and for the "phasing out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies".
An EU spokesman reportedly described the climate negotiations with Australia as being like "trench warfare". Other officials said it had been "very difficult" and protracted.
Speaking to the media after the summit, Abbott downplayed the importance of the fund. He took a similar line on the greenhouse reduction pledges unveiled by Obama and the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, immediately before the summit.
He said all nations "support strong action ... to address climate change", but added: "We are all going to approach this in our own way and there are a range of [climate] funds which are there."
Obama and the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, both urged G20 countries to contribute to the Green Climate Fund, which is seen as critical to a successful outcome at crucial climate negotiations in Paris next year. In the end, at Australia's insistence, the communique called for contributions to financing funds "such as the Green Climate Fund".
Obama said the US and Chinese agreement meant there was "no excuse for other nations" not to make similar commitments on greenhouse gas reductions.
But Abbott said by his reading the deal "means 80% of China's power needs in 2030 are still going to be provided by coal". He said coal was critical to lifting 1.3 billion people out of poverty, and "what we need to do is to ensure that the coal-fired power stations we need are as efficient as possible".
The treasurer, Joe Hockey, also downplayed the deal earlier on Sunday.
"Barack Obama has to get any initiative on climate change through a hostile US Congress," he said. "So far he hasn't had great success."
As Obama explained again on Sunday, the US "shaped that target based on existing authorities" to use Environment Protection Agency powers "rather than the need for additional congressional action".
Abbott began the closed-door discussion on energy on Sunday morning by telling the world leaders that "as the world's largest producer of coal, I'd like to stand up for coal", sources told Guardian Australia.
Speaking to the press after the meeting, Abbott denied Australia had been forced into climate discussions, saying "the very first draft [of the G20 communique] talked about climate change, all the way through we have been talking about energy efficiency and climate change".
As revealed by Guardian Australia, the first draft did include climate change, but in very general terms. But European countries and the US argued until late on Saturday to force the host country to strengthen the words - including the commitment to the Green Climate Fund, which Abbott has previously said Australia would not support.
Australia was also reluctant to include the reference to fossil fuel subsidies in the communique, but it was eventually included after forceful support from Obama. The communique calls on G20 members to "rationalise and phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies".
LOAD-DATE: November 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
289 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 16, 2014 Sunday 9:00 PM GMT
Corrections and clarifications;
Steve Martland | Russia Today | Potiskum, Nigeria | Underestimated/overestimated
BYLINE: Corrections and clarifications column editor
SECTION: FROM THE GUARDIAN
LENGTH: 295 words
· A review of a concert held in tribute to the composer Steve Martland ( 13 November, page 42 ) said he had died in May last year, "aged just 53". Before his death, Martland was thought to have been born in 1959, but it later emerged that he was born five years earlier, making him 58 when he died.
· We gave the budget of Russia Today, Moscow's English-language TV channel, as "more than $1bn" ( Pussy Riot enjoy the sights - then issue warning, 14 November, page 9 ). A more accurate figure is $324m (£207m).
· An article ( Bomber disguised in school uniform kills dozens of pupils, 11 November, page 22 ) misspelled Potiskum, the capital of the north-eastern Yobe state in Nigeria, as Potsikum on first mention.
· "The difficulty of tackling climate change cannot be underestimated," we said in an analysis piece about an agreement between China and the US to lower greenhouse-gas emissions ( World's two big polluters finally get serious about climate change, 13 November, page 23). The difficulty cannot be overestimated, we meant to say. As the entry in the Guardian style guide on underestimate says: "Take care that you don't mean overestimate or overstate. We often get this wrong."
· Other recently corrected articles include:
Six myths about how the unions are ruining Britain
German city gives green light to traffic-light women
Polygamy wasn't a theological debate for early Mormon women. It was part of their lives
LDS church admits founder Joseph Smith had about 40 wives
Steve Martland obituary
Steve Martland: an appreciation
LOAD-DATE: November 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
290 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 16, 2014 Sunday 8:34 PM GMT
Tony Abbott rules out more contributions from Australia to green climate fund;
G20 leaders insisted on stronger language about the fund in summit communique, but Abbott says Australia doesn't intend to do more
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 770 words
Tony Abbott has defied global pressure to commit to the "green climate fund", designed to help poor countries adapt to climate change, because Australia is already spending $2.5bn on its domestic Direct Action fund and providing $10bn in capital to a so-called "green bank" - which he is trying to abolish.
World leaders forced Australia to include stronger language about the green climate fund in the G20 communique - Barack Obama pledged the US would contribute $3bn to it and the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, offered $1.5bn - but soon after the conference was over Abbott indicated it wouldn't make any immediate difference to Australia's position.
Speaking after a meeting on Sunday night with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, Abbott said Direct action was already "quite a substantial fund".
"We also have a clean energy finance corporation which was established by the former government and there is $10bn in capital which has been allocated to this. In addition to those two funds a proportion of our overseas aid, particularly in the Pacific, is allocated for various environmental schemes including schemes to deal with climate change. So, we are doing a very great deal and I suppose given what we are doing we don't intend, at this time, to do more," he said.
Abbott told world leaders at the Brisbane summit that as the leader of a major coal producer he would be "standing up for coal".
The communique references demanded by other leaders, including Obama, were reluctantly accepted by Australia at the last minute. They included a call for contributions to the green climate fund that the prime minister has previously derided and for the "phasing out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies".
A European Union spokesman reportedly described the climate negotiations with Australia as being like "trench warfare". Other officials said it had been "very difficult" and protracted.
Speaking to the media after the summit, Abbott downplayed the importance of the fund. He took a similar line on the greenhouse reduction pledges unveiled by Obama and the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, immediately before the summit.
He said all nations "support strong action ... to address climate change", but added: "We are all going to approach this in our own way and there are a range of [climate] funds which are there."
Obama and the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, both urged G20 countries to contribute to the green climate fund, which is seen as critical to a successful outcome at crucial climate negotiations in Paris next year. In the end, at Australia's insistence, the communique called for contributions to financing funds "such as the green climate fund".
Obama said the US and Chinese agreement meant there was "no excuse for other nations" not to make similar commitments on greenhouse gas reductions.
But Abbott said by his reading the deal "means 80% of China's power needs in 2030 are still going to be provided by coal". He said coal was critical to lifting 1.3 billion people out of poverty, and "what we need to do is to ensure that the coal-fired power stations we need are as efficient as possible".
The treasurer, Joe Hockey, also downplayed the deal earlier on Sunday.
"Barack Obama has to get any initiative on climate change through a hostile US Congress," he said. "So far he hasn't had great success."
As Obama explained again on Sunday, the US "shaped that target based on existing authorities" to use Environment Protection Agency powers "rather than the need for additional congressional action".
Abbott began the closed-door discussion on energy on Sunday morning by telling the world leaders that "as the world's largest producer of coal, I'd like to stand up for coal", sources told Guardian Australia.
Speaking to the press after the meeting, Abbott denied Australia had been forced into climate discussions, saying "the very first draft [of the G20 communique] talked about climate change, all the way through we have been talking about energy efficiency and climate change".
As revealed by Guardian Australia, the first draft did include climate change, but in very general terms. But European countries and the United States argued until late on Saturday to force the host country to strengthen the words - including the commitment to the green climate fund, which Abbott has previously said Australia would not support.
Australia was also reluctant to include the reference to fossil fuel subsidies in the communique, but it was eventually included after forceful support from Obama. The communique calls on G20 members to "rationalise and phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies".
LOAD-DATE: November 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
291 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 16, 2014 Sunday 5:23 PM GMT
Steven Chu warns UK its nuclear plans risk becoming financial drain;
Former US energy chief and Nobel physicist says UK plan to build various types of reactors is expensive and time-consuming
BYLINE: Terry Macalister
SECTION: BUSINESS
LENGTH: 853 words
A leading energy expert has warned that although the British government is right to proceed with new nuclear plants they risk becoming a "financial drain" unless they can be built on time and on budget.
Steven Chu, the former US energy secretary and Nobel prizewinning physicist, believes using a variety of reactor designs - as the UK looks poised to do - is not the best way to keep costs down.
"Unless we can learn to build nuclear on schedule and on budget it will be a financial drain. Other countries have learned how to do this: South Korea has built 10 plants exactly the same and the tenth plant was only 60% of the cost of the original one. The cost came marching down because they just kept doing the same thing," he told the Guardian.
"That is true of all industries. If you build exactly the same its get cheaper, cheaper, cheaper. Everything different means it will cost more. You have to understand that. When the United States built its nuclear plants they were all different," argued Chu who was President Obama's energy secretary until April last year and is now a professor at Stanford University in California.
Atomic plants being built in Finland and France are much more expensive than forecast and are suffering significant delays but EDF, the company planning to build Hinkley Point C reactors in Somerset, says it will learn from those mistakes. While EDF plans to use an "EPR" design at Hinkley and possibly at Sizewell in Suffolk, other developers in Britain are planning different models.
Chu, who was in Britain giving this year's Romanes Lecture at Oxford University, believes a key role for nuclear power will be to provide support for other low-carbon, but intermittent, power technologies such as wind and solar, of which he is a supporter.
"In the US, within a decade, onshore wind without subsidy is going to be less expensive than natural gas - even with natural gas staying at its current price which is two-and-a-half times less expensive than natural gas in the UK.
"I think England may be a different story in the sense that you have a lot of good wind resources but it's a small country, and I know England is looking at another generation of nuclear reactors which I am in favour of: perhaps what we need is one more generation of nuclear reactors."
Chu, whose current work includes research into more powerful and effective batteries, says: "Sometimes you will get 100% wind but other times the wind will not be blowing and you do need back-up power and that is going to come from fossil fuel or nuclear. What we will be able to do by mid-century is 50% of electricity from renewables if Europe shares its renewable resources ... We would still need to capture carbon from fossil fuel-generating plants, also from cement and steel (manufacturing) plants."
The Stanford professor is still worried that not enough progress is being made worldwide to tackle climate change but remains upbeat about Obama's attempts to galvanise the US more, not least through the recent bilateral agreement with China. Would a Republican president in in 2016 represent a setback?
"A Republican presidency would not necessarily be a setback. It was a rabid anti-communist [Richard Nixon] who opened up China. That same president started the Environmental Protection Agency which is not considered part of the Republican agenda. Another Republican president [George Bush senior] stopped underground nuclear testing in the United States. He also put a cap and trade system in place on some emissions from power plants.
"Some leading Republicans support a carbon tax for instance. You start at $10-$15 per tonne and slowly make it rise to $60 or so. But you use those revenues for the people - you do not use those revenues for other government programmes. We have means of doing it, through higher social security cheques or helping the unemployed. You give it back to the American people."
Chu dismisses concerns that a price on carbon could damage energy-intensive businesses pointing out that most oil companies now carry a "ghost price" for carbon on the books.
And he says tougher political action on climate change would bring new solutions itself. "As long as engineers know what is happening, if countries know that is happening then people will come up with technical solutions. Historically [solutions] arrive."
As for the chance of a binding climate change agreement between countries at next year's vital talks in Paris he says: "I think there is forward momentum. I hope [Paris] is better than Copenhagen. Do I have significant hope there will be a binding agreement among all countries, probably not. But my guess is that China will put a price on carbon during this government. Central government knows there is a huge risk [from climate change] their country faces.
"That is why they are working hard to diversify their energy supply and are the largest installer of wind and solar in the world as well as building 30-plus nuclear power plants and trying to develop their natural gas resources. So China is moving, major states in the US are moving but ... I get nervous. We are not moving fast enough.
LOAD-DATE: November 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
292 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 16, 2014 Sunday 2:06 PM GMT
Read the G20 small print: summits promise more than they deliver;
Brisbane summit action plan relates to living standards, banks, climate change, Ebola and tax evasion ... and much more
BYLINE: Larry Elliott, economics editor
SECTION: BUSINESS
LENGTH: 1113 words
The G20 is going to boost living standards and create better jobs. It has an 800-point action plan that will increase the size of the global economy by more than 2% over the next four years. It is going to step up the fight against climate change, make banks safer, modernise infrastructure, crack down on tax evasion and win the battle against Ebola. Not bad for a weekend in Brisbane.
A word of advice: read the small print. Summits invariably promise more than they deliver; commitments made in communiqués are forgotten as soon as leaders have jetted out of the country. A quick look at the document pieced together in Brisbane suggests it is the familiar wishlist of pledges, most of which will not be met.
Did the G20 sign up to numerical targets for cutting carbon emissions? No it did not. Did it put extra money on the table for tackling Ebola? No. Is it expecting the private sector to produce most of the money for infrastructure projects? Yes. Is the action against tax evasion weakened by the failure to make registers of beneficial ownership open to public scrutiny? Most definitely. Is the G20 complacent in thinking that it has fixed the banks? Almost certainly.
The G20 is right when it says the global recovery is "slow, uneven and not delivering the jobs needed". The assessment that the global economy is being held back by a lack of demand is bang also on the money. Few would dispute the conclusion that there are both financial and geopolitical risks out there. It was something of a triumph for Barack Obama to get climate change in the communiqué at all given the opposition of Tony Abbott, the summit's host. What's clear is that the world is at a critical juncture. What's not clear is whether the long drama that has been the global financial crisis will end happily or with bodies littering the stage.
Act 1 was the crisis itself, a couple of months in which the near-implosion of the banks led to a 1930s-style collapse of trade and industrial production.
Act 2 was the co-ordinated response by an international community fearful of a second Great Depression. Interest rates were cut, money was created, public spending rose, taxes were cut. This period covered the inaugural gathering of the G20 in Washington in November 2008 and its second meeting in London the following April.
In act 3, growth started to recover and the united front cracked. Some countries wanted to start removing some of the stimulus as soon as possible. Others wanted to wait until they were sure the pick-up was for real. In the end, the G20 countries went their own way.
That proved to be a useful experiment. China had the biggest stimulus package, spending heavily on infrastructure projects and expanding credit. Of the advanced countries, the US made jobs and growth a higher priority than reducing the budget deficit. The eurozone was keener to start raising interest rates and decided that action to reduce budget deficits should begin without delay. The UK fell somewhere in between; the coalition government that arrived in power in 2010 expected the Bank of England to provide the support for growth through record low interest rates and money creation while the Treasury took the axe to the deficit.
In act 4, the results of the experiment came in. Compared to previous recoveries, the one after the global financial crisis has been weak, particularly given the unprecedented amount of support that has been provided by central banks and finance ministries. China recovered fastest and Beijing has now started to choke off some of the excesses caused by its aggressive anti-slump measures. Washington's decision to put growth ahead of deficit reduction paid off: the US economy is growing at 3% a year while the deficit is down from 10% of GDP to 4% of GDP.
The eurozone's approach was a disaster. A misplaced concern about inflation and an obsession with balancing budgets have resulted in a prolonged period of weak growth, entrenched high unemployment and low inflation. Policy blunders have allowed a crisis that initially affected only small countries on the periphery of the eurozone to infect the core.
Britain has fallen somewhere between the US and the eurozone. UK policy in 2010 looked quite similar to that in the eurozone but became less like that on the other side of the Channel as time wore on. The Bank of England showed far more imagination than the European Central Bank, with the incentives for credit expansion in the 2012 Funding for Lending scheme crucial in rekindling a dormant housing market. Meanwhile, George Osborne eased up on his deficit-reduction and debt-reduction targets. Having looked more like Europe in 2011 and 2012, the UK now looks more like the US.
Brisbane marks the start of act 5. Two endings are possible. In one, China completes the transition to lower but more balanced growth, Japan is revitalised by Abenomics, the eurozone lifted out of its torpor by ECB quantitative easing, and a non-disruptive return to more normal levels of interest rates in the US and the UK. Lower oil prices lead to stronger demand. Markets stay calm. The Middle East goes quiet. Russia decides it does not want to be an international pariah.
The past week has shown that international co-operation, while not as strong as in 2008-09, is still there. The G20 in Brisbane was one modest expression of solidarity. Perhaps more meaningful was the US-China deal on climate change, which did include quantifiable targets. India's decision to sign up to the World Trade Organisation agreement on streamlining procedures for the passage of goods across national borders kept hopes of a multilateral trade agreement alive.
In the other, a heavy price is paid for attempting to muddle through. The second leg of the crisis begins in the Far East, with Japan using aggressive QE to drive down the value of the yen. This makes Japanese goods cheaper on global markets. China responds by driving down the value of its currency. A new wave of deflation is exported to the rest of the global economy, with particularly grievous consequences for Europe. Falling prices make debt servicing more expensive and the number of defaults increases. Hedge funds collapse and there are fears for the banks. It emerges that the G20 plan for ensuring that systemically-important banks are not "too big to fail" only works in individual cases not when there is a generalised panic. With policymakers wondering what they have left in the locker, Vladimir Putin decides it is the time to cut up rough over Ukraine. Act 5 ends not with the players waking up to find the crisis was all a bad dream but instead with Shakespeare's most famous stage direction: exit pursued by a bear.
LOAD-DATE: November 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
293 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 16, 2014 Sunday 9:42 AM GMT
G20 peer pressure forces Tony Abbott to pay lip service to climate action;
The prime minister's economic agenda was spectacularly sidelined but his promises on climate change bind him to nothing
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 508 words
It cost almost $500m, shut down a city for an entire weekend and was attended by more than 7,000 people from all corners of the world, but did Australia's G20 year actually achieve anything?
Actually it did. It delivered a graphic lesson in the power, and limitations, of prime ministerial and presidential peer pressure.
Tony Abbott wanted a summit focused on increasing economic growth, neatly segueing into domestic arguments over controversial stalled budgetary policies that he claims will have the same growth-enhancing effect in Australia.
But Australia's intransigence on the climate change issue and the force with which it was swept aside by the US president, Barack Obama, the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki Moon, and the British prime minister, David Cameron, meant the weekend deviated quite spectacularly from that plan.
Peer pressure is also what every other G20 outcome relies upon to have any chance of success.
The headline achievement was a list of 800 new policies the IMF and OECD say could increase collective G20 growth by 2.1% if they are implemented.
A brief perusal of the list indicates that is a very big if.
But Mike O'Callaghan, the director of the G20 studies centre at the Lowy Institute thinktank, said that because the IMF and the OECD would check whether countries had implemented the policies on their lists, peer pressure - in effect, embarrassment - was the best chance of the promises being kept.
The other G20 "achievement" was pushing forward international efforts to clamp down on profit shifting and tax avoidance.
The major outcomes had already been worked out by the OECD, but World Vision's chief executive, Tim Costello, said the G20 meeting was important because no country wanted to be singled out as the one blocking action on tax avoidance.
"Nothing that has happened here this weekend changes anything, but the threat of global attention focused people's minds in the lead-up to the meeting and will continue to focus them in the future," he said. "And that keeps driving this process of transparency forward." Peer pressure again.
But in the end, after all the pressure on him to make concessions on climate change, Abbott agreed to communique words that didn't bind him to do anything. And he made very clear as soon as the leaders were leaving Brisbane that he didn't really have any immediate action in mind. (The fact he had told them earlier he was "standing up for coal" probably gave them a hint). The Green Climate Fund they had pushed so hard to win support for - just one of a bunch of funds you could give money to, he said. The game-changing emissions reductions pledges by China and the US was also not such a big deal in the prime minister's mind.
If Australia's "concessions" to other countries on the issues it didn't want to talk about, or commit to, can so quickly look like lip service, it stands to reason that the fate of the promises from other countries that Australia is hailing as major victories could be exactly the same. Peer pressure is powerful, but only up to a point.
LOAD-DATE: November 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
294 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 16, 2014 Sunday 9:21 AM GMT
G20 Brisbane: Obama and other leaders depart - as it happened;
Australia's prime minister calls G20 the most 'influential and significant gathering that's ever been held in our country'Read the full G20 communique
BYLINE: Michael Safi and Dan Sabbagh
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 7751 words
block-time published-time 7.22pm AEST
It's been a day of two halves at Brisbane. While the leaders talked in private, there was a long wait for the media. Most of the early excitement was generated by Australia's koala diplomacy, where the marsupials were pressed on a string of world leaders. If you missed our picture gallery you can catch up with the cuddling here.
Later, though, it became clear who the summit's losers were, as the event wound up. Vladimir Putin left early, insisting first of all that he to get some sleep before starting work in Moscow on Monday, before it emerged that the Russian president had had enough after under sustained pressure over his support for the separatists in eastern Ukraine.
Tony Abbott, the summit's host, had to accept climate change onto the agenda. After pressure from Barack Obama, the language on the subject was toughened up in the final communique, including a call for contributions to the international green climate fund that the prime minister has previously derided and for the "phasing out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies".
The Australian prime minister had to console himself by telling fellow leaders that as the leader of a major coal producer he would be "standing up for coal".
block-time published-time 6.45pm AEST
Patrick Wintour has filed more on David Cameron's press conference. Here's what he writes:
David Cameron has signalled he will take on the trade union opponents of the US-EU trade deal, insisting their arguments that it would lead to the privatisation of the health service were "bogus nonsense".
The prime minister said the EU and the US president, Barack Obama, had agreed to speed up the negotiations aimed at achieving a transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP).
It was "time to take on some of the opponents of this deal and expose the arguments against it", he said.
"This is good for Britain - good for growth and British families."
Sections of the trade union movement, campaign groups and and parts of the Labour party are virulently opposed to the deal, claiming it will undermine the NHS and expose it to private sector competition.
You can read the full story here.
block-time published-time 6.25pm AEST
Looks like Barack Obama is already off, judging by these pictures. There were around 100 security personnel guarding the Marine One helicopter as it waited for US President, according to Australia's Channel Nine News.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 6.34pm AEST
block-time published-time 6.20pm AEST
Earlier, at his closing press conference, David Cameron refused to comment on reports suggesting the British Islamic State fighter believed to have been partly responsible for executing hostages in Syria has been injured or even killed in allied airstrikes in northern Syria.
He added that people should be "in no doubt" that he wanted the fighter to "face justice". He added: "If people travel to Syria or Iraq in order to conduct terror operations against British people or British citizens and people back in Britain, they are putting themselves in harm's way and they should not be in any doubt about that."
block-time published-time 6.09pm AEST
Putin left after hours of browbeating over Ukraine
My colleague Patrick Wintour has more information about why Vladimir Putin left early. The Russian president said he had to get back to Moscow to work, but is also thought to have had enough after enduring hours of browbeating by a succession of Western leaders urging him to drop his support for secessionists in eastern Ukraine.
Putin had individually met five European leaders including David Cameron and Angela Merkel where he refused to give ground over Ukraine. The meeting with the German chancellor went on until 2am last night. Full story is coming shortly.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 6.46pm AEST
block-time published-time 5.57pm AEST
Obama has moved, now I'll do the same. Thanks for staying with us. My colleague Dan Sabbagh will steer you through the final hours of this conference, which are sure to see lots of in-depth analysis of the Brisbane Action Plan that was announced two hours ago.
block-time published-time 5.48pm AEST
G20 leaders have approved a package of 800 measures estimated to increase their economic output by at least 2.1% by 2018 if fully implemented, my colleague Daniel Hurst writes.
At the end of the two-day summit in Brisbane, Australia, leaders representing 85% of the world's economy also called for "strong and effective action" on climate change, with countries urged to reveal new emissions reduction targets in the first few months of next year.
Australia, the host nation, had wanted to keep the summit focused on economic growth rather than climate change, but new commitments by China, the US and Japan helped build momentum for stronger global action to curb greenhouse gases.
The host prime minister, Tony Abbott, said the summit had "very substantially delivered" on the goals of Australia's presidency: boosting growth and employment, enhancing global economic resilience and strengthening global institutions.
Read the full story here
block-time published-time 5.45pm AEST
Obama is now being asked about reports that the United States is re-evaluating its Syria strategy, and specifically whether it is considering some kind of alliance with country's dicator, Bashar Al-Assad, in light of the rise of the militia group Islamic State.
"Certainly no changes have taken place with respect to our attitude towards Bashar Al-Assad," Obama replies. "Assad has ruthlessly murdered hundreds of thousands of his citizens and a consequence has completely lost legitimacy with the majority of the country."
"For us to then make common cause with him against Isil would only turn more Sunnis in Syria in the direction of supporting Isil, and would weaken our coalition, that sends a message around the region, this isn't a fight against Sunni Islam, it's a fight against any extremists," he says.
U.S. President Barak Obama speaks to the media during a press conference at the end of the G-20 summit in Brisbane, Australia, Sunday, Nov. 16, 2014.(AP Photo/Rob Griffith) Photograph: Rob Griffith/AP
block-time published-time 5.39pm AEST
Aboriginal activists burned effigies of prominent Indigenous figures Noel Pearson and Warren Mundine on the final day of protests during the G20 summit in Brisbane, my colleague Josh Robertson writes.
Wayne Wharton, the Brisbane Aboriginal sovereign embassy (Base) leader, told a rally of about 100 people the pair were "elitist sellouts", as a crowd circled burning figures labelled "King Noel Pearson" and "King Warren Mundine".
Protesters also burned the Australian flag and an effigy of Indigenous academic Marcia Langton, labelled "Queen Marcia Langton".
The protest again highlighted the hostility of grassroots activists towards Pearson, a Cape York lawyer, and Mundine, a former national Australian Labor party president, and their perception by mainstream Australia.
Read the full story here
Indigenous rights protesters burn Australian national flags during a rally on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Brisbane, Australia 16 November 2014. Photograph: JAMIE MCKINNELL/EPA
block-time published-time 5.35pm AEST
Side note: When Obama walked in, every US reporter stood up. All the Australian reporters stayed seated.
- Mark Di Stefano (@MarkDiStef) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 5.32pm AEST
"It is not our preference to see Russia as isolated as it is," Obama says. "But we're also very firm on the need to uphold core international principles. And one of those principles is that you don't invade other countries."
He adds that economic sanctions on Russia are having a "devastating impact" and "biting plenty good".
Obama at G20 Photograph: ABC News 24
block-time published-time 5.26pm AEST
Obama is running through the summit's achievements on trade, climate change and ebola, saying the week saw "historic steps towards a cleaner and healthier planet".
The US president is also saying he has several discussions with Russian president Vladimir Putin at the G20 and last week at Beijing's APEC summit. "I would characterise them as typical of our interactions, which are business-like and blunt," Obama says.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 5.26pm AEST
block-time published-time 5.20pm AEST
We're now hearing from US president Barack Obama, who begins by telling reporters the summit "wasn't just a good old chin wag", adding "I really love that expression".
block-time published-time 5.18pm AEST
UK prime minister David Cameron is now fronting reporters in Brisbane, saying world leaders at the summit made it "very clear to Russia that the continued destabilisation of Ukraine is simply unacceptable".
He says the response to Russia's aggression is going to be "a test of the stamina and a test of the political will of the US and the countries of the EU. I think we will meet that test, I think we have done so so far".
"President Putin can see he is at a crossroads," he says.
"There is a different path that he could take. He could recognise, as he put it to me last night, that Ukraine is a single political space and recognise that that single political space has to be respected," he says.
That would see "sanctions eased, a proper relationship between Britain and Europe on the one hand, and Russia on the other... an altogether better future", he says.
block-time published-time 5.06pm AEST
Reporters are pressing the PM on the Green Climate Fund, and whether Australia will contribute any money to it. He's also been questioned on reports in Guardian Australia that he declared he was "standing up for coal" in discussions with world leaders this morning.
"This is one of the funds that G20 countries are interested in contributing to. It's not the only fund but it's certainly one of the funds, and that's why it's there in the communique," Abbott says.
"We are all going to approach this in our own way obviously."
"As for coal, without going into the details of who said what to whom... I should remind everyone that right now there are 1.3b people right around the globe who have no access to electricity," he says.
"How can those people have a decent living standard without access to electricity... Coal is going to be an important part of that for decades to come," he says.
He also makes reference to the US-China climate deal that was reached on Wednesday, which stipulated that 20% of China's energy mix by 2030 would come from non-fossil fuels, pointing out that the remaining 80% is still likely to come from coal.
block-time published-time 4.56pm AEST
He's also been asked about Vladimir Putin's reported remarks to Russian media that he found Abbott to be "business-like" and "professional".
"I'm happy to be on a unity ticket with Vladimir Putin on that subject," Abbott says. "All of us want stronger growth, and certainly growth will be much stronger than it otherwise would have been, as a result of the agreements made at this G20 conference."
Asked about the status of his relationship with Putin, "and whether Australians will be happy to see him go", Abbott said he appreciated the opportunity to speak "candidly" and "robustly" with the Russian leader.
"Now I have some differences with the Russian government obviously. I utterly deplore what seems to be happening in eastern Ukraine. I demand that Russia fully cooperate with the criminal investigation into the downing of Mhl, one of the most terrible atrocities," he says.
"I had very robust discussions about Mhl with Vladimir Putin. Other leaders had very robust discussions with Mr Putin."
"When all is said and done, president Putin was a guest in our country. President Putin is a member of the G20 and I was happy to treat him with respect and courtesy while he was in Australia," Abbott says.
Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbott speaks to the media during a press conference at the conclusion of the G-20 summit in Brisbane, Australia, Sunday, Nov. 16, 2014.(AP Photo/Rob Griffith) Photograph: Rob Griffith/AP
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.58pm AEST
block-time published-time 4.48pm AEST
Abbott has just been asked whether Australia will commit to new carbon emissions targets ahead of next year's Paris conference, and whether Australia will contribute anything to the Green Climate Fund, something which the PM has previously derided as a "Bob Brown Bank".
He replied: "Australia has always believed that climate change is real and humanity makes a contribution and strong and effective action against it should be taken."
"This government has just passed through the parliament to put into effect our emissions reduction fund... We're not just talking about taking action against climate change, we're cracking on with the job," he says.
"Australia is a high performer on actually delivering on real action," he says.
"We'll be making further decisions at the right time and what we want to do is take effective action against climate change which is consistent with continued strong economic growth, continues jobs growth, and continues development," he says.
block-time published-time 4.38pm AEST
We've just obtained a copy of the 2014 G20 communique. Here's the much-anticipated and squabbled-over passage on climate change:
We support strong and effective action to address climate change. Consistent with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its agreed outcomes, our actions will support sustainable development, economic growth, and certainty for business and investment. We will work together to adopt successfully a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the UNFCCC that is applicable to all parties at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris in 2015.
We encourage parties that are ready to communicate their intended nationally determined contributions well in advance of COP21 (by the first quarter of 2015 for those parties ready to do so). We reaffirm our support for mobilising finance for adaptation and mitigation, such as the Green Climate Fund.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.38pm AEST
block-time published-time 4.33pm AEST
"Of course, it goes without saying, that all of us support strong and effective action to address climate change," Abbott says.
"Our actions will support sustainable development, economic growth, and of course we will all work constructively towards the climate change conference in Paris next year."
Abbott has also announced that China will be the G20 host in 2016, after Turkey completes its presidency next year.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.36pm AEST
block-time published-time 4.32pm AEST
Abbott has also touched (briefly) on rules to tighten up global cooperation on tax to ensure societies received the tax revenue "that is their due", Abbott says.
He's also mentioned reforms "to make derivative markets safer" and said the G20 has "endorsed landmark energy principles which will ensure access to affordable and reliable energy for all".
block-time published-time 4.29pm AEST
Abbott says the G20 has committed to a "peer-reviewed growth package that, if implemented, will achieve a 2.1% increase in global growth over the next give years on top of business as usual".
It's called the Brisbane Action Plan, and contains 800 separate reform measures, including a global infrastructure hub to be based in Sydney. They've also agreed to a plan to reduce the gap between men and women in the workforce by "25% over the next 10 years. This has the potential to bring 100m into the global workforce," he says.
block-time published-time 4.24pm AEST
The prime minister, Tony Abbott, has begun speaking, calling the G20 the most "influential and significant gathering that's ever been held in our country".
He says the summit has achieved "real, practical outcomes" and that "people, right around the world are going to be better off, and that's what it's all about".
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.24pm AEST
block-time published-time 4.22pm AEST
More exclusive details from Lenore Taylor in this updated story about how this morning's meetings, in which Australia's prime minister, Tony Abbott, told world leaders he was "standing up for coal".
Abbott opened the closed-door discussion on energy on Sunday morning by telling the world leaders that "as the world's largest producer of coal, I'd like to stand up for coal", sources told Guardian Australia.
Several leaders, including the French president, François Hollande, made strong statements in support of immediate action on climate change and commitments to the green climate fund, to which Barack Obama pledged $3bn on Saturday. Abbott then wrapped up the climate discussion he had hoped not to have by saying he was glad the leaders had had a chance to discuss energy efficiency.
He remarked that a "good economy is good for the environment" and urged countries to focus on the development of "clean coal" technology and efficient coal and energy use.
After bitter behind-the-scenes discussions and fierce opposition from Australia - as revealed by Guardian Australia - a reference encouraging countries to promise money to funds such as the green climate fund was included in the G20s final communique.
block-time published-time 4.15pm AEST
A revised press conference schedule courtesy of Daniel Hurst. PM Abbott schedule to begin speaking within minutes.
New schedule Photograph: G20
block-time published-time 4.08pm AEST
Quote from the G20 koala: "That's just like Vladimir Putin - he shoots, meets and leaves" #G20Brisbane#G20
- Warren Murray (@WarrenNMurray) November 16, 2014
As we reported earlier, Jimbelung, the two-year-old female koala who gave Putin his warmest reception at the summit, is now destined for a wildlife park in Japan.
block-time published-time 4.05pm AEST
My colleague Daniel Hurst reports that treasurer Joe Hockey, finance minister Mathias Cormann and foreign affairs minister Julie Bishop have taken their seats in the audience ahead of Tony Abbott's address to the media.
Meanwhile the Courier Mail's Jason Tin has marked yet another step by Vegemite towards world domination:
One of US President Barack Obama's Secret Service agents has developed a taste for Vegemite - just bought a jar at convenience store #G20
- Jason Tin (@jasonthetin) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 3.54pm AEST
It's been a big few days at #G20 some journalists are a bit tuckered out. pic.twitter.com/w8setJQiHv
- Kerrin Binnie (@kerrinbinnie) November 16, 2014
It's not just Vlad feeling the lack of sleep, as my colleague Daniel Hurst points out.
block-time published-time 3.50pm AEST
"A tired Vladimir Putin has left Brisbane's G20 praising the summit's 'constructive atmosphere' and saying the reported fallout between him and leaders of Western countries were exaggerated by the media," writes my colleague Ben Doherty in Brisbane.
He goes on:
Putin was the first world leader to leave Australia, his jet taking off shortly after 2pm local time.
The Russian president told reporters from his own country he was the first to go because he had to get back to Moscow to work, and he needed "four or five hours sleep".
But Putin remained defiant over Russian interests in Ukraine, saying Kiev's economic blockade of the separatist east was "a big mistake", though "not fatal".
"I don't understand why Kiev authorities are cutting off those territories with their own hands. Well one can understand - to save money. But it's not the time or the case to save money on," he said.
Read the full story here
Russian President Vladimir Putin looks out from his limousine en route to Brisbane Airport as he leaves the G20 leaders summit early, November 16, 2014. Photograph: JASON REED/Reuters
Meanwhile, we await a press conference by the Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, which should begin any minute now.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 3.52pm AEST
block-time published-time 3.26pm AEST
Exclusive: Tony Abbott tells leaders he is "standing up for coal"
Another big scoop from my colleague Lenore Taylor : Tony Abbott has told a G20 leaders' discussion on energy he was " standing up for coal " , as the Queensland government prepares to unveil new infrastructure spending to help the development of Australia's largest coal mine.
During the closed-door discussion on energy on Sunday morning, Abbott told the world leaders that "as the world's largest producer of coal, I'd like to stand up for coal", sources told Guardian Australia. Abbott, who recently said coal was "good for humanity", also endorsed the mine, proposed by the Indian company Adani, to the meeting.
Here's the full story
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.12pm AEST
block-time published-time 3.06pm AEST
Trade union leaders have complained they have been subject to an effective lockout from the heart of G20 discussions by Tony Abbott, my colleague Patrick Wintour writes.
Frances O'Grady, the general secretary of the British Trades Union Congress, said the Australian prime minister had downgraded the status of labour leaders attending the summit in an unprecedented manner, forcing them to seek individual meetings with world leaders because they did not hold equal status alongside the business group.
Here's the full story
block-time published-time 2.59pm AEST
Putin bids goodbye to Brisbane
Here's the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, departing Brisbane airport just now.
Putin departs Photograph: ABC News 24
My colleague Ben Doherty writes:
Vladimir has left for the airport, he spoke to Russian reporters before he left, praising the 'constructive atmosphere' of the G20 and saying reports of a rift between he and Western leaders were exaggerations of the media.
He has to leave straight away because he has to get back to Moscow, and to work, he said.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.11pm AEST
block-time published-time 2.55pm AEST
It's a brutally hot 37 degrees in Brisbane at the moment, just as the Washington Post reports that last month was the hottest October on record, keeping 2014 on track to be the warmest year ever recorded. Read it and weep.
block-time published-time 2.50pm AEST
Do svidaniya, gospodin Putin
A farewell wave and a smile from Russian President Vladimir Putin as he departs his hotel for the airport pic.twitter.com/0y171hlW4H
- Alex Ellinghausen (@ellinghausen) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 2.39pm AEST
Information now filtering in about what Russian president Vladimir Putin told Russian reporters at a press conference at his hotel.
Putin says G20 atmosphere was good, blames Australian media for rumors of discontent #G20#Putin
- Stephanie Burnett (@Stephy_Burnett) November 16, 2014
Translation of latest RT: "Putin: Talk about Ukraine at bilateral meetings were frank , informative and helpful" #G20
- Erienne Lette (@ErienneLette) November 16, 2014
RT @Anna_Iva_RT - Putin: The Prime Minister of Australia, has created a favorable atmosphere for teamwork #G20
- Erienne Lette (@ErienneLette) November 16, 2014
RT @Anna_Iva_RT -"Putin: Mr Abbott's experience is very good. He's a good moderator and professional partner" #G20
- Erienne Lette (@ErienneLette) November 16, 2014
Translation: RT @Anna_Iva_RT "Putin: I believe that our job is finished and completed with success" #G20
- Erienne Lette (@ErienneLette) November 16, 2014
Putin explains why he didn't attend Sunday #G20 breakfast: sent Finance Minister because of tight sched, said Abbott was understanding
- Stephanie Burnett (@Stephy_Burnett) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 2.35pm AEST
Presented without comment:
#G20 RT @BuzzFeedOz : This Vine Shows Obama Getting Handshake Blanked At #G20Brisbanehttps://t.co/DpVb8PVfkg
- ABC Radio Brisbane (@612brisbane) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 2.30pm AEST
ABC News is reporting that Russian president Vladimir Putin has finished his press conference and will be flying out of Brisbane in about 20 minutes, which his staff say was always the plan, and not a reaction to the frosty reception he's received from other G20 leaders.
Russian ?????? planes preparing to leave Brisbane. #G20#Putin@abcnewspic.twitter.com/6ZGaRLvg1F
- David Lewis (@dlewis89) November 16, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 2.35pm AEST
block-time published-time 2.26pm AEST
It's been a quiet-ish couple of hours as leaders get down to business inside Brisbane's convention centre, but we're bracing for an afternoon of press conferences and the release of the summit's communique. Here's the schedule - all in Brisbane time.
Schedule of Sunday afternoon's press conferences Photograph: Guardian
So we can expect to hear from Tony Abbott in about an hour.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 2.29pm AEST
block-time published-time 2.04pm AEST
My colleague Ben Doherty passes on that Russian president Vladimir Putin has returned to his hotel to speak to Russian reporters and may be leaving Brisbane within the hour, without fronting up to Western media.
Russian president Vladimir Putin has returned to his #G20 hotel. Rumoured to be leaving Brisbane within an hour or so pic.twitter.com/339zgal5Fe
- Luke Royes (@lukeroyes) November 16, 2014
Ben says Putin's advisers are not answering calls.
Channel Nine's Alex Bernhardt says she tried to get into Putin's presser but was denied access.
Just tried to get into Putin press conference. Spotted we were Aus media and access denied. @9NewsBrisbane#9News
- Alex Bernhardt (@ABernhardt9) November 16, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 2.14pm AEST
block-time published-time 2.02pm AEST
Protests are starting to kick up again, including a 300-strong march through Brisbane that commenced by setting the Australian flag alight.
All that's left of an Australian flag after anti-G20 protesters set it on fire ahead of their march through the city. pic.twitter.com/nZbvdAvDXX
- 7News Brisbane (@7NewsBrisbane) November 16, 2014
The flag has actually held up rather well, if you ask me. It's also being lofted upside down by demonstrators:
Anti-G20 protesters march through #Brisbane city with the Australian flag upside down. #G20#7Newspic.twitter.com/Y9k4PwA3cJ
- 7News Brisbane (@7NewsBrisbane) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 1.39pm AEST
Last koala photo, I promise. But these are fighting words from New Zealand's prime minister John Key:
After what the Kiwis did to Australia in the league final, there was some hesitation on the koala's part. pic.twitter.com/WHQreVPI4T
- John Key (@johnkeypm) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 1.35pm AEST
I'm told that Prime Minister Tony Abbott is privately "seething" at Obama's speech yesterday. To be expected I suppose...
- Peter van Onselen (@vanOnselenP) November 16, 2014
All eyes now on whether the G20 communique, set to be released within hours, will include strong references to climate change and especially the new Green Climate Fund established by the United States.
block-time published-time 1.21pm AEST
Police pat a punter's hot and tired pooch at South Bank as Operation Good Cop continues at #G20pic.twitter.com/y6M1T3w3w8
- Greg Stolz (@GregStolzJourno) November 16, 2014
Reports are that protests are way down on yesterday; as yet no arrests.
Like yesterday, they're covering the gamut of issues, including Hong Kong's so-called umbrella revolution:
The #UmbrellaRevolution has come to Brisbane. Hopefully there's more brollies on the way. #G20Brisbane#G20pic.twitter.com/NyeeQJhl2
- Kieran Rooney (@KieranRooneyCM) November 16, 2014
This protest is a little bit busier. Oromo protesters calling for independence from Ethiopia. #G20Brisbane#g20pic.twitter.com/2DLK3umk2H
- Kieran Rooney (@KieranRooneyCM) November 16, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.27pm AEST
block-time published-time 1.01pm AEST
Crucial update here: The Koala who posed with Putin has been identified as 2-year-old female called Jimbelung. She's also destined for a wildlife park in Japan, according to the White House pool report. It also treats us to some frightening imagery involving the Queensland premier, Campbell Newman:
Jimbelung, the 2-year-old female koala who posed for pictures with POTUS and Vladimir Putin on Saturday, made a brief appearance in the G20 press center, making reporters forget about fiscal stimulus for a few minutes. The koala, who munched eucalyptus contentedly, is being sent from a wildlife park here to Japan as a gift.
The animal's handler said Jimbelung, which means friend, was too tired after her bilats with Putin and Obama to pose for pictures with the pool, but he made an exception when the premier of Queensland, Campbell Newman, showed up with outstretched arms and a retinue of local media.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.14pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.47pm AEST
#koaladiplomacy had a long history pic.twitter.com/O3yZ4i2IFv
- Chip Rolley (@ChipRolley) November 15, 2014
block-time published-time 12.44pm AEST
The New York Times has some more details of the wrangling over climate change, which has threatened to sideline the Abbott government's agenda for this G20 summit.
"You've got to be able to overcome old divides, look squarely at the science and reach a strong global climate agreement next year," Mr. Obama said. "If China and the United States can agree on this, then the world can agree on this. We can get this done."
Mr. Obama 's words carried an extra edge in Australia, where Prime Minister Tony Abbott is a blunt skeptic about the science behind climate change. He boasted to the leaders gathered for the meeting that his government had repealed a tax on carbon emissions - a key tool to curb the greenhouse gases that heat up the atmosphere.
Mr. Abbott tried to keep climate change off the agenda at the Group of 20 meeting, preferring to focus on jobs and economic growth. But Mr. Obama's $3 billion pledge to the Green Climate Fund, announced in his speech here, made that difficult.
It goes on :
Mr. Obama seemed well aware of what he was doing. Australia and the United States, he said, both have bad track records on carbon emissions because they share a frontier tradition and an abundance of fossil fuels - "which means," he said, "we've got to step up."
That line drew a burst of applause from the audience. Australian officials listened respectfully but left little doubt where they stood afterward.
"Australia is a resources-exporting economy: coal, gas, uranium," said Tim Nicholls, the treasurer and minister of trade of the State of Queensland. "We think a sensible debate is absolutely necessary, but we also think there is a future for coal, as there is for gas."
Read on here
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.38pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.32pm AEST
Australia resisting inclusion of Green Climate Fund in G20 communique
Australia is quietly fighting the US and EU to keep the G20 from making a strong statement on climate change action, Lenore Taylor writes in an extraordinary scoop :
Initially Australia didn't want climate change in the G20 communique at all. Then it spent weeks fighting to keep the language vague.
Now, Guardian Australia can reveal the original text of the end of summit statement, the revised text and the inside story of the G20 countries' fight over its wording.
Australia's treasurer, Joe Hockey, told the ABC Insiders program on Sunday morning that Australia did agree to include a paragraph on climate change in the first draft of the G20 communique. What he didn't say is that Australian negotiators have resisted attempts to strengthen it ever since.
Read the full story of the backroom battle here
block-time published-time 12.20pm AEST
This is interesting: two of the three countries involved in this morning's Australia-US-Japan dialogue have announced big money pledges for the new Green Climate Fund.
Can you guess which two?
United States and Japan Announce $4.5 Billion in Pledges to Green Climate Fund (GCF)
Making good on our commitment to support efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions and build climate resilience worldwide, the United States and Japan announced a total of up to $4.5 billion in pledges to the Green Climate Fund (GCF). This includes up to $3 billion from the United States and up to $1.5 billion from Japan, subject to respective domestic procedures and based on strong contributions from other donors. Our pledges build on those already announced by Germany, France, and other donors, which include developed and developing countries.
Our pledges will be reiterated at the GCF's pledging session on November 20 in Berlin, Germany, where additional countries are expected to announce pledges. By announcing significant pledges promptly and at the leader level, we aim to provide great momentum to the ongoing climate change negotiations toward a post-2020 agreement that is applicable to all, in which countries make ambitious and transparent commitments to reduce their emissions.
Today's announcement builds on a history of collective leadership by the United States, Japan, and other countries to support resilient and low-carbon development around the world. In 2008, our countries jointly spearheaded the establishment of the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs). Our pledges to the GCF are a continuation of that spirit of leadership. The GCF will mobilize investment from the private sector, whose resources and expertise will be essential to meet the climate challenge.
We encourage all countries that are able to join us in pledging to the GCF. We will continue working with our partners on the GCF Board and other stakeholders to make the GCF fully operational and ensure that it is an efficient and effective channel for climate finance.
block-time published-time 12.17pm AEST
Overheard being barked down a phone @G20Australia : "but it's for the President" (possibly "buttocks for the President").
- Ben Doherty (@BenDohertyCorro) November 16, 2014
Not a single detail is going to escape our reporters on the ground in Brisbane today.
block-time published-time 12.09pm AEST
We've just had announcement following a meeting this morning between the leaders of Australia, the United States and Japan. Daniel Hurst reports:
The leaders of Australia, Japan and the US have denounced Russia's "actions to destabilise eastern Ukraine" after a trilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G20 this morning. Tony Abbott, Shinzo Abe and Barack Obama "resolved to tackle pressing issues" including developments in Ukraine.In a joint statement, they condemned "Russia's purported annexation of Crimea and its actions to destabilise eastern Ukraine" and expressed support for "bringing to justice those responsible for the downing of flight Mhl" in July.
The leaders also reaffirmed the importance of degrading and defeating Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq and Syria and countering the threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters. They expressed support for ending the deadline Ebola virus epidemic in west Africa."The three leaders also underscored the strength of their regional cooperation, including eliminating the North Korean nuclear and missile threat; addressing human rights in North Korea including the abductions issue; and ensuring freedom of navigation and over-flight and the peaceful resolution of maritime disputes in accordance with international law, including through legal mechanisms such as arbitration," the statement said.The leaders also committed "to deepen the already strong security and defence cooperation" among the US, Australia and Japan.
U.S. President Barack Obama (L), Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe meet at the G20 summit in Brisbane November 16, 2014. Photograph: HANDOUT/REUTERS
block-time published-time 12.03pm AEST
Exclusion zones, snipers, bulletproof glass, fake fake Obama; the security of world leaders at the G20 summit has been a huge concern and organisers have gone all out. How then to explain allowing the globe's most powerful people to get so close to these clawed, chlamydia-riddled* menaces?
U.S. President Barack Obama laughs as holds a koala while Prime Minister of Australia Tony Abbott looks on during a photo opportunity on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Brisbane, Australia. Photograph: Andrew Taylor/AP
From the Victorian government's Koala management strategy:
Safe handling of Koalas requires experience and strength and should not be attempted by inexperienced persons... Koalas are powerful animals and have sharp claws, their handling by untrained people can lead to serious injury.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper holds a koala before the start of the first G20 meeting in Brisbane, Australia, 15 November 2014. Photograph: ANDREW TAYLOR / HANDOUT/EPA
Fact: "Koala cuddling" has been banned in New South Wales since 1997.
Myanmar's President Thein Sein holds a koala before the start of the first G20 meeting in Brisbane, Australia, 15 November 2014. Photograph: ANDREW TAYLOR / HANDOUT/EPA
"They may seem passive and sleepy, but come mating time, koalas morph into aggressive, smelly creatures that you'd never want to cuddle in a million years."
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott (L), German Chancellor Angela Merkel (2-R) and Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Christine Lagarde meet a koala bear before the start of the first G20 meeting in Brisbane, Australia, 15 November 2014. Photograph: ANDREW TAYLOR / HANDOUT/EPA
*This is a serious problem affecting Australia's precious Koala population and you can donate money to help here
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.13pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.42am AEST
Forget koalas. This is Australia, via my colleague Christian Bennett:
Australia taking a firm stance on pretentious coffee ordering at g20. Love it or leave it. pic.twitter.com/3bO0s4L1uk
- Christian Bennett (@christianobeno) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 11.38am AEST
A spot of cricket, via my colleague Daniel Hurst:
Journalists and observers in the media centre tired of waiting for the G20 leaders to sign off on their communique are enjoying a bit of beach cricket. Except that it's not really on the beach - it's inside the air-conditioned confines of the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre. But there is a surfboard behind the wickets at the Queensland/Brisbane stand. When people have had their fix of cricket they can step over to the pretend entrance to a Queenslander-style home. The tourism reps report that the brownies are popular. In the last couple of days, the stand has hosted koalas, snakes and bilbies for international media to have a look at. Howzat!
pic.twitter.com/FiLqpQWEbb
- Michael Safi (@safimichael) November 16, 2014
pic.twitter.com/hfa2iczT9U
- Michael Safi (@safimichael) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 11.30am AEST
Temperatures have just hit a stinking 31 degrees in Brisbane, on their way to an expected top of 41 degrees within a couple of hours. My colleague Christian Bennett reports there's plenty of G20-branded sunscreen on hand for the delegates, who I can only imagine are stunned human life can exist in these conditions.
Things Brandis should have had yesterday! G20 branded sunscreen. pic.twitter.com/hYFNHX5QeX
- Christian Bennett (@christianobeno) November 15, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.38am AEST
block-time published-time 11.22am AEST
Here's more from Lenore Taylor and Daniel Hurst on the ABC TV interview this morning with Australian treasurer Joe Hockey, in which he was asked whether he thought climate change was an impediment to economic growth:
"No, I don't. Absolutely not," he told the Insiders program.
He went on to downplay the post-2020 emission reduction commitments unveiled by Obama and Chinese president Xi Jinping on the eve of the G20 summit in Brisbane.
"Look at China. China is going to continue to increase emissions until 2030. It is going to continue increasing emissions to 2030," he said.
Hockey questioned Obama's ability to deliver on his new pledge, saying: "Barack Obama has to get any initiative on climate change through a hostile US Congress ... That's up to the US but so far he hasn't had great success. You never know. Hopefully he can do what he wants to do as president but we all face those challenges - but we have to do what we believe to be right for the nation; he is doing what he believes to be right of the United States."
Read the full story here
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.23am AEST
block-time published-time 11.05am AEST
The Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, has attended a trilateral meeting this morning with US president Barack Obama and the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe.
More details here from the White House pool report:
"Good morning," Obama said to Abbott, extending his hand. "How are you?"
"It's good to be here with two such economic and strategic partners,"Abbott said.
A Japanese journalist shouted something at the leaders as they prepared to sit down, after which they clasped hands across their chests.
Pool, now cheerfully attired in green bibs, is moving to a hold room.
Later this afternoon, the [US] President will meet European Leaders to discuss the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the situation in Ukraine. There will be a travel pool spray at the top. This meeting will take place at 2:15pm AEST.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.07am AEST
block-time published-time 10.59am AEST
Was the Obama fake a fake?
Among the more colourful stories to emerge yesterday was a world exclusive by the Brisbane tabloid, the Courier Mail, showing the first pictures of Barack Obama's presidential decoy.
Courier Mail story on Obama's decoy Photograph: Courier Mail/Twitter
Obama's decoy is an extremely rare sight, mainly for the reason that he doesn't actually exist. At least, that's according to the White House. Buzzfeed has done the digging :
BuzzFeed News contacted several members of President Obama's delegation who denied the president traveled with body doubles in separate cars - a practice popularised in modern times by former dictator Saddam Hussein.
Will the official denials be enough to put the story to rest? I'm guessing not.
block-time published-time 10.40am AEST
Climate change loomed large yesterday, despite the best efforts of the Australian government, which was accused of "blocking" the issue on the summit's agenda. Here's what else went down on the first day of the G20 Leaders' Summit in Brisbane:
Russian officials were forced to deny reports that president Vladimir Putin was leaving the summit earlier after receiving a frosty reception from world leaders over Russian aggression in Ukraine. The Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, gave Putin a particularly stinging welcome, telling him: "I guess I'll shake your hand but I have only one thing to say to you: You need to get out of Ukraine."
The Queensland government worked feverishly behind the scenes lobbying Unesco representatives to stop the Great Barrier Reef from being listed as "in danger" by the UN's cultural and heritage body.
Putin will be bracing for a "catastrophic" slump in oil prices as David Cameron said Europe would have no choice but to step up sanctions if the Russian president did not abide by previous agreements to respect Ukraine's independence.
The Australian treasurer, Joe Hockey, said governments risked losing their legitimacy in the eyes of the people if multinationals are allowed to continue avoid paying their fair share tax.
Less than a dozen protesters were charged despite sustained demonstrations throughout Saturday covering every issue imaginable. That's in contrast to Toronto's G20 meeting in 2010 which saw more than 1,100 people arrested.
U.S. president Barack Obamareasserted America's so-called pivot to the Asia-Pacific in an address at the University of Queensland, declaring that the majority of the American navy and air force would be based out of the region by 2020. "The United States is and always will be a Pacific power," Obama said.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.43am AEST
block-time published-time 10.22am AEST
Soaring temperatures and an increasingly isolated position on climate change have Australia feeling the heat in Brisbane. My colleague Lenore Taylor reports that British PM David Cameron has addressed Tony Abbott's position directly, telling Sky News:
Countries that have so far done the least have to think about what more they can do. I've had good and friendly discussions with prime minister Abbott about that.
He went on:
I hope [Australia will] do everything they can in the coming months to look at what more they can deliver, because when it comes to Paris if we want to get a global agreement everyone is going to have to bring something to the table.
Read the full story here
His remarks came after US president Barack Obama forced climate change onto the G20 agenda with a strong speech urging the world to rally behind a new global agreement in Paris next year, and pledging $3bn to a green climate fund that Abbott has previously said Australia won't contribute to.
Australia's treasurer, Joe Hockey, has tried to put the spotlight back onto the economy on ABC television this morning, telling Insiders host Barrie Cassidy: "This is an economic forum. This is about millions and millions of jobs. This is about getting millions of people out of poverty."
"We cannot afford to deal with climate change if governments are in recession or countries are facing huge economic challenges," he said.
BRISTANE, AUSTRALIA - NOVEMBER 15: U.S. President Barack Obama (R) and British Prime Minister David Cameron attend the opening session of the G20 Summit on November 15, 2014 in Brisbane, Australia. Photograph: Xinhua /Landov / Barcroft Media/Xinhua /Landov / Barcroft Media
block-time published-time 10.05am AEST
Good morning and welcome to our live coverage of today's ongoing G20 summit in Brisbane.
We'll recap Saturday's developments shortly. On the ground today we have a bumper team: Lenore Taylor, Josh Robertson, Daniel Hurst, Patrick Wintour, Christian Bennett and Ben Doherty.
What they'll be covering is actually a small mystery. The official press schedule lists a single event at 11am (Brisbane time) in which global policy experts will tell us "what to expect from the G20 summit".
And after that? A big fat "TBC", according to the schedule.
Today's G20 schedule
At the very least we can expect two round of talks, including one on energy, and a pledge to increase economic growth by at least 2%, before the summit's communique is signed and sealed this evening. We'll bring the events to you live all day, so stick with us.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.06am AEST
LOAD-DATE: November 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
295 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 16, 2014 Sunday 8:23 AM GMT
G20 Brisbane: Obama and other leaders depart - live;
Australia's prime minister calls G20 the most 'influential and significant gathering that's ever been held in our country'Read the full G20 communique
BYLINE: Michael Safi and Dan Sabbagh
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 7751 words
block-time published-time 7.22pm AEST
It's been a day of two halves at Brisbane. While the leaders talked in private, there was a long wait for the media. Most of the early excitement was generated by Australia's koala diplomacy, where the marsupials were pressed on a string of world leaders. If you missed our picture gallery you can catch up with the cuddling here.
Later, though, it became clear who the summit's losers were, as the event wound up. Vladimir Putin left early, insisting first of all that he to get some sleep before starting work in Moscow on Monday, before it emerged that the Russian president had had enough after under sustained pressure over his support for the separatists in eastern Ukraine.
Tony Abbott, the summit's host, had to accept climate change onto the agenda. After pressure from Barack Obama, the language on the subject was toughened up in the final communique, including a call for contributions to the international green climate fund that the prime minister has previously derided and for the "phasing out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies".
The Australian prime minister had to console himself by telling fellow leaders that as the leader of a major coal producer he would be "standing up for coal".
block-time published-time 6.45pm AEST
Patrick Wintour has filed more on David Cameron's press conference. Here's what he writes:
David Cameron has signalled he will take on the trade union opponents of the US-EU trade deal, insisting their arguments that it would lead to the privatisation of the health service were "bogus nonsense".
The prime minister said the EU and the US president, Barack Obama, had agreed to speed up the negotiations aimed at achieving a transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP).
It was "time to take on some of the opponents of this deal and expose the arguments against it", he said.
"This is good for Britain - good for growth and British families."
Sections of the trade union movement, campaign groups and and parts of the Labour party are virulently opposed to the deal, claiming it will undermine the NHS and expose it to private sector competition.
You can read the full story here.
block-time published-time 6.25pm AEST
Looks like Barack Obama is already off, judging by these pictures. There were around 100 security personnel guarding the Marine One helicopter as it waited for US President, according to Australia's Channel Nine News.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 6.34pm AEST
block-time published-time 6.20pm AEST
Earlier, at his closing press conference, David Cameron refused to comment on reports suggesting the British Islamic State fighter believed to have been partly responsible for executing hostages in Syria has been injured or even killed in allied airstrikes in northern Syria.
He added that people should be "in no doubt" that he wanted the fighter to "face justice". He added: "If people travel to Syria or Iraq in order to conduct terror operations against British people or British citizens and people back in Britain, they are putting themselves in harm's way and they should not be in any doubt about that."
block-time published-time 6.09pm AEST
Putin left after hours of browbeating over Ukraine
My colleague Patrick Wintour has more information about why Vladimir Putin left early. The Russian president said he had to get back to Moscow to work, but is also thought to have had enough after enduring hours of browbeating by a succession of Western leaders urging him to drop his support for secessionists in eastern Ukraine.
Putin had individually met five European leaders including David Cameron and Angela Merkel where he refused to give ground over Ukraine. The meeting with the German chancellor went on until 2am last night. Full story is coming shortly.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 6.46pm AEST
block-time published-time 5.57pm AEST
Obama has moved, now I'll do the same. Thanks for staying with us. My colleague Dan Sabbagh will steer you through the final hours of this conference, which are sure to see lots of in-depth analysis of the Brisbane Action Plan that was announced two hours ago.
block-time published-time 5.48pm AEST
G20 leaders have approved a package of 800 measures estimated to increase their economic output by at least 2.1% by 2018 if fully implemented, my colleague Daniel Hurst writes.
At the end of the two-day summit in Brisbane, Australia, leaders representing 85% of the world's economy also called for "strong and effective action" on climate change, with countries urged to reveal new emissions reduction targets in the first few months of next year.
Australia, the host nation, had wanted to keep the summit focused on economic growth rather than climate change, but new commitments by China, the US and Japan helped build momentum for stronger global action to curb greenhouse gases.
The host prime minister, Tony Abbott, said the summit had "very substantially delivered" on the goals of Australia's presidency: boosting growth and employment, enhancing global economic resilience and strengthening global institutions.
Read the full story here
block-time published-time 5.45pm AEST
Obama is now being asked about reports that the United States is re-evaluating its Syria strategy, and specifically whether it is considering some kind of alliance with country's dicator, Bashar Al-Assad, in light of the rise of the militia group Islamic State.
"Certainly no changes have taken place with respect to our attitude towards Bashar Al-Assad," Obama replies. "Assad has ruthlessly murdered hundreds of thousands of his citizens and a consequence has completely lost legitimacy with the majority of the country."
"For us to then make common cause with him against Isil would only turn more Sunnis in Syria in the direction of supporting Isil, and would weaken our coalition, that sends a message around the region, this isn't a fight against Sunni Islam, it's a fight against any extremists," he says.
U.S. President Barak Obama speaks to the media during a press conference at the end of the G-20 summit in Brisbane, Australia, Sunday, Nov. 16, 2014.(AP Photo/Rob Griffith) Photograph: Rob Griffith/AP
block-time published-time 5.39pm AEST
Aboriginal activists burned effigies of prominent Indigenous figures Noel Pearson and Warren Mundine on the final day of protests during the G20 summit in Brisbane, my colleague Josh Robertson writes.
Wayne Wharton, the Brisbane Aboriginal sovereign embassy (Base) leader, told a rally of about 100 people the pair were "elitist sellouts", as a crowd circled burning figures labelled "King Noel Pearson" and "King Warren Mundine".
Protesters also burned the Australian flag and an effigy of Indigenous academic Marcia Langton, labelled "Queen Marcia Langton".
The protest again highlighted the hostility of grassroots activists towards Pearson, a Cape York lawyer, and Mundine, a former national Australian Labor party president, and their perception by mainstream Australia.
Read the full story here
Indigenous rights protesters burn Australian national flags during a rally on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Brisbane, Australia 16 November 2014. Photograph: JAMIE MCKINNELL/EPA
block-time published-time 5.35pm AEST
Side note: When Obama walked in, every US reporter stood up. All the Australian reporters stayed seated.
- Mark Di Stefano (@MarkDiStef) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 5.32pm AEST
"It is not our preference to see Russia as isolated as it is," Obama says. "But we're also very firm on the need to uphold core international principles. And one of those principles is that you don't invade other countries."
He adds that economic sanctions on Russia are having a "devastating impact" and "biting plenty good".
Obama at G20 Photograph: ABC News 24
block-time published-time 5.26pm AEST
Obama is running through the summit's achievements on trade, climate change and ebola, saying the week saw "historic steps towards a cleaner and healthier planet".
The US president is also saying he has several discussions with Russian president Vladimir Putin at the G20 and last week at Beijing's APEC summit. "I would characterise them as typical of our interactions, which are business-like and blunt," Obama says.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 5.26pm AEST
block-time published-time 5.20pm AEST
We're now hearing from US president Barack Obama, who begins by telling reporters the summit "wasn't just a good old chin wag", adding "I really love that expression".
block-time published-time 5.18pm AEST
UK prime minister David Cameron is now fronting reporters in Brisbane, saying world leaders at the summit made it "very clear to Russia that the continued destabilisation of Ukraine is simply unacceptable".
He says the response to Russia's aggression is going to be "a test of the stamina and a test of the political will of the US and the countries of the EU. I think we will meet that test, I think we have done so so far".
"President Putin can see he is at a crossroads," he says.
"There is a different path that he could take. He could recognise, as he put it to me last night, that Ukraine is a single political space and recognise that that single political space has to be respected," he says.
That would see "sanctions eased, a proper relationship between Britain and Europe on the one hand, and Russia on the other... an altogether better future", he says.
block-time published-time 5.06pm AEST
Reporters are pressing the PM on the Green Climate Fund, and whether Australia will contribute any money to it. He's also been questioned on reports in Guardian Australia that he declared he was "standing up for coal" in discussions with world leaders this morning.
"This is one of the funds that G20 countries are interested in contributing to. It's not the only fund but it's certainly one of the funds, and that's why it's there in the communique," Abbott says.
"We are all going to approach this in our own way obviously."
"As for coal, without going into the details of who said what to whom... I should remind everyone that right now there are 1.3b people right around the globe who have no access to electricity," he says.
"How can those people have a decent living standard without access to electricity... Coal is going to be an important part of that for decades to come," he says.
He also makes reference to the US-China climate deal that was reached on Wednesday, which stipulated that 20% of China's energy mix by 2030 would come from non-fossil fuels, pointing out that the remaining 80% is still likely to come from coal.
block-time published-time 4.56pm AEST
He's also been asked about Vladimir Putin's reported remarks to Russian media that he found Abbott to be "business-like" and "professional".
"I'm happy to be on a unity ticket with Vladimir Putin on that subject," Abbott says. "All of us want stronger growth, and certainly growth will be much stronger than it otherwise would have been, as a result of the agreements made at this G20 conference."
Asked about the status of his relationship with Putin, "and whether Australians will be happy to see him go", Abbott said he appreciated the opportunity to speak "candidly" and "robustly" with the Russian leader.
"Now I have some differences with the Russian government obviously. I utterly deplore what seems to be happening in eastern Ukraine. I demand that Russia fully cooperate with the criminal investigation into the downing of Mhl, one of the most terrible atrocities," he says.
"I had very robust discussions about Mhl with Vladimir Putin. Other leaders had very robust discussions with Mr Putin."
"When all is said and done, president Putin was a guest in our country. President Putin is a member of the G20 and I was happy to treat him with respect and courtesy while he was in Australia," Abbott says.
Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbott speaks to the media during a press conference at the conclusion of the G-20 summit in Brisbane, Australia, Sunday, Nov. 16, 2014.(AP Photo/Rob Griffith) Photograph: Rob Griffith/AP
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.58pm AEST
block-time published-time 4.48pm AEST
Abbott has just been asked whether Australia will commit to new carbon emissions targets ahead of next year's Paris conference, and whether Australia will contribute anything to the Green Climate Fund, something which the PM has previously derided as a "Bob Brown Bank".
He replied: "Australia has always believed that climate change is real and humanity makes a contribution and strong and effective action against it should be taken."
"This government has just passed through the parliament to put into effect our emissions reduction fund... We're not just talking about taking action against climate change, we're cracking on with the job," he says.
"Australia is a high performer on actually delivering on real action," he says.
"We'll be making further decisions at the right time and what we want to do is take effective action against climate change which is consistent with continued strong economic growth, continues jobs growth, and continues development," he says.
block-time published-time 4.38pm AEST
We've just obtained a copy of the 2014 G20 communique. Here's the much-anticipated and squabbled-over passage on climate change:
We support strong and effective action to address climate change. Consistent with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its agreed outcomes, our actions will support sustainable development, economic growth, and certainty for business and investment. We will work together to adopt successfully a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the UNFCCC that is applicable to all parties at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris in 2015.
We encourage parties that are ready to communicate their intended nationally determined contributions well in advance of COP21 (by the first quarter of 2015 for those parties ready to do so). We reaffirm our support for mobilising finance for adaptation and mitigation, such as the Green Climate Fund.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.38pm AEST
block-time published-time 4.33pm AEST
"Of course, it goes without saying, that all of us support strong and effective action to address climate change," Abbott says.
"Our actions will support sustainable development, economic growth, and of course we will all work constructively towards the climate change conference in Paris next year."
Abbott has also announced that China will be the G20 host in 2016, after Turkey completes its presidency next year.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.36pm AEST
block-time published-time 4.32pm AEST
Abbott has also touched (briefly) on rules to tighten up global cooperation on tax to ensure societies received the tax revenue "that is their due", Abbott says.
He's also mentioned reforms "to make derivative markets safer" and said the G20 has "endorsed landmark energy principles which will ensure access to affordable and reliable energy for all".
block-time published-time 4.29pm AEST
Abbott says the G20 has committed to a "peer-reviewed growth package that, if implemented, will achieve a 2.1% increase in global growth over the next give years on top of business as usual".
It's called the Brisbane Action Plan, and contains 800 separate reform measures, including a global infrastructure hub to be based in Sydney. They've also agreed to a plan to reduce the gap between men and women in the workforce by "25% over the next 10 years. This has the potential to bring 100m into the global workforce," he says.
block-time published-time 4.24pm AEST
The prime minister, Tony Abbott, has begun speaking, calling the G20 the most "influential and significant gathering that's ever been held in our country".
He says the summit has achieved "real, practical outcomes" and that "people, right around the world are going to be better off, and that's what it's all about".
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.24pm AEST
block-time published-time 4.22pm AEST
More exclusive details from Lenore Taylor in this updated story about how this morning's meetings, in which Australia's prime minister, Tony Abbott, told world leaders he was "standing up for coal".
Abbott opened the closed-door discussion on energy on Sunday morning by telling the world leaders that "as the world's largest producer of coal, I'd like to stand up for coal", sources told Guardian Australia.
Several leaders, including the French president, François Hollande, made strong statements in support of immediate action on climate change and commitments to the green climate fund, to which Barack Obama pledged $3bn on Saturday. Abbott then wrapped up the climate discussion he had hoped not to have by saying he was glad the leaders had had a chance to discuss energy efficiency.
He remarked that a "good economy is good for the environment" and urged countries to focus on the development of "clean coal" technology and efficient coal and energy use.
After bitter behind-the-scenes discussions and fierce opposition from Australia - as revealed by Guardian Australia - a reference encouraging countries to promise money to funds such as the green climate fund was included in the G20s final communique.
block-time published-time 4.15pm AEST
A revised press conference schedule courtesy of Daniel Hurst. PM Abbott schedule to begin speaking within minutes.
New schedule Photograph: G20
block-time published-time 4.08pm AEST
Quote from the G20 koala: "That's just like Vladimir Putin - he shoots, meets and leaves" #G20Brisbane#G20
- Warren Murray (@WarrenNMurray) November 16, 2014
As we reported earlier, Jimbelung, the two-year-old female koala who gave Putin his warmest reception at the summit, is now destined for a wildlife park in Japan.
block-time published-time 4.05pm AEST
My colleague Daniel Hurst reports that treasurer Joe Hockey, finance minister Mathias Cormann and foreign affairs minister Julie Bishop have taken their seats in the audience ahead of Tony Abbott's address to the media.
Meanwhile the Courier Mail's Jason Tin has marked yet another step by Vegemite towards world domination:
One of US President Barack Obama's Secret Service agents has developed a taste for Vegemite - just bought a jar at convenience store #G20
- Jason Tin (@jasonthetin) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 3.54pm AEST
It's been a big few days at #G20 some journalists are a bit tuckered out. pic.twitter.com/w8setJQiHv
- Kerrin Binnie (@kerrinbinnie) November 16, 2014
It's not just Vlad feeling the lack of sleep, as my colleague Daniel Hurst points out.
block-time published-time 3.50pm AEST
"A tired Vladimir Putin has left Brisbane's G20 praising the summit's 'constructive atmosphere' and saying the reported fallout between him and leaders of Western countries were exaggerated by the media," writes my colleague Ben Doherty in Brisbane.
He goes on:
Putin was the first world leader to leave Australia, his jet taking off shortly after 2pm local time.
The Russian president told reporters from his own country he was the first to go because he had to get back to Moscow to work, and he needed "four or five hours sleep".
But Putin remained defiant over Russian interests in Ukraine, saying Kiev's economic blockade of the separatist east was "a big mistake", though "not fatal".
"I don't understand why Kiev authorities are cutting off those territories with their own hands. Well one can understand - to save money. But it's not the time or the case to save money on," he said.
Read the full story here
Russian President Vladimir Putin looks out from his limousine en route to Brisbane Airport as he leaves the G20 leaders summit early, November 16, 2014. Photograph: JASON REED/Reuters
Meanwhile, we await a press conference by the Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, which should begin any minute now.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 3.52pm AEST
block-time published-time 3.26pm AEST
Exclusive: Tony Abbott tells leaders he is "standing up for coal"
Another big scoop from my colleague Lenore Taylor : Tony Abbott has told a G20 leaders' discussion on energy he was " standing up for coal " , as the Queensland government prepares to unveil new infrastructure spending to help the development of Australia's largest coal mine.
During the closed-door discussion on energy on Sunday morning, Abbott told the world leaders that "as the world's largest producer of coal, I'd like to stand up for coal", sources told Guardian Australia. Abbott, who recently said coal was "good for humanity", also endorsed the mine, proposed by the Indian company Adani, to the meeting.
Here's the full story
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.12pm AEST
block-time published-time 3.06pm AEST
Trade union leaders have complained they have been subject to an effective lockout from the heart of G20 discussions by Tony Abbott, my colleague Patrick Wintour writes.
Frances O'Grady, the general secretary of the British Trades Union Congress, said the Australian prime minister had downgraded the status of labour leaders attending the summit in an unprecedented manner, forcing them to seek individual meetings with world leaders because they did not hold equal status alongside the business group.
Here's the full story
block-time published-time 2.59pm AEST
Putin bids goodbye to Brisbane
Here's the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, departing Brisbane airport just now.
Putin departs Photograph: ABC News 24
My colleague Ben Doherty writes:
Vladimir has left for the airport, he spoke to Russian reporters before he left, praising the 'constructive atmosphere' of the G20 and saying reports of a rift between he and Western leaders were exaggerations of the media.
He has to leave straight away because he has to get back to Moscow, and to work, he said.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.11pm AEST
block-time published-time 2.55pm AEST
It's a brutally hot 37 degrees in Brisbane at the moment, just as the Washington Post reports that last month was the hottest October on record, keeping 2014 on track to be the warmest year ever recorded. Read it and weep.
block-time published-time 2.50pm AEST
Do svidaniya, gospodin Putin
A farewell wave and a smile from Russian President Vladimir Putin as he departs his hotel for the airport pic.twitter.com/0y171hlW4H
- Alex Ellinghausen (@ellinghausen) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 2.39pm AEST
Information now filtering in about what Russian president Vladimir Putin told Russian reporters at a press conference at his hotel.
Putin says G20 atmosphere was good, blames Australian media for rumors of discontent #G20#Putin
- Stephanie Burnett (@Stephy_Burnett) November 16, 2014
Translation of latest RT: "Putin: Talk about Ukraine at bilateral meetings were frank , informative and helpful" #G20
- Erienne Lette (@ErienneLette) November 16, 2014
RT @Anna_Iva_RT - Putin: The Prime Minister of Australia, has created a favorable atmosphere for teamwork #G20
- Erienne Lette (@ErienneLette) November 16, 2014
RT @Anna_Iva_RT -"Putin: Mr Abbott's experience is very good. He's a good moderator and professional partner" #G20
- Erienne Lette (@ErienneLette) November 16, 2014
Translation: RT @Anna_Iva_RT "Putin: I believe that our job is finished and completed with success" #G20
- Erienne Lette (@ErienneLette) November 16, 2014
Putin explains why he didn't attend Sunday #G20 breakfast: sent Finance Minister because of tight sched, said Abbott was understanding
- Stephanie Burnett (@Stephy_Burnett) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 2.35pm AEST
Presented without comment:
#G20 RT @BuzzFeedOz : This Vine Shows Obama Getting Handshake Blanked At #G20Brisbanehttps://t.co/DpVb8PVfkg
- ABC Radio Brisbane (@612brisbane) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 2.30pm AEST
ABC News is reporting that Russian president Vladimir Putin has finished his press conference and will be flying out of Brisbane in about 20 minutes, which his staff say was always the plan, and not a reaction to the frosty reception he's received from other G20 leaders.
Russian ?????? planes preparing to leave Brisbane. #G20#Putin@abcnewspic.twitter.com/6ZGaRLvg1F
- David Lewis (@dlewis89) November 16, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 2.35pm AEST
block-time published-time 2.26pm AEST
It's been a quiet-ish couple of hours as leaders get down to business inside Brisbane's convention centre, but we're bracing for an afternoon of press conferences and the release of the summit's communique. Here's the schedule - all in Brisbane time.
Schedule of Sunday afternoon's press conferences Photograph: Guardian
So we can expect to hear from Tony Abbott in about an hour.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 2.29pm AEST
block-time published-time 2.04pm AEST
My colleague Ben Doherty passes on that Russian president Vladimir Putin has returned to his hotel to speak to Russian reporters and may be leaving Brisbane within the hour, without fronting up to Western media.
Russian president Vladimir Putin has returned to his #G20 hotel. Rumoured to be leaving Brisbane within an hour or so pic.twitter.com/339zgal5Fe
- Luke Royes (@lukeroyes) November 16, 2014
Ben says Putin's advisers are not answering calls.
Channel Nine's Alex Bernhardt says she tried to get into Putin's presser but was denied access.
Just tried to get into Putin press conference. Spotted we were Aus media and access denied. @9NewsBrisbane#9News
- Alex Bernhardt (@ABernhardt9) November 16, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 2.14pm AEST
block-time published-time 2.02pm AEST
Protests are starting to kick up again, including a 300-strong march through Brisbane that commenced by setting the Australian flag alight.
All that's left of an Australian flag after anti-G20 protesters set it on fire ahead of their march through the city. pic.twitter.com/nZbvdAvDXX
- 7News Brisbane (@7NewsBrisbane) November 16, 2014
The flag has actually held up rather well, if you ask me. It's also being lofted upside down by demonstrators:
Anti-G20 protesters march through #Brisbane city with the Australian flag upside down. #G20#7Newspic.twitter.com/Y9k4PwA3cJ
- 7News Brisbane (@7NewsBrisbane) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 1.39pm AEST
Last koala photo, I promise. But these are fighting words from New Zealand's prime minister John Key:
After what the Kiwis did to Australia in the league final, there was some hesitation on the koala's part. pic.twitter.com/WHQreVPI4T
- John Key (@johnkeypm) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 1.35pm AEST
I'm told that Prime Minister Tony Abbott is privately "seething" at Obama's speech yesterday. To be expected I suppose...
- Peter van Onselen (@vanOnselenP) November 16, 2014
All eyes now on whether the G20 communique, set to be released within hours, will include strong references to climate change and especially the new Green Climate Fund established by the United States.
block-time published-time 1.21pm AEST
Police pat a punter's hot and tired pooch at South Bank as Operation Good Cop continues at #G20pic.twitter.com/y6M1T3w3w8
- Greg Stolz (@GregStolzJourno) November 16, 2014
Reports are that protests are way down on yesterday; as yet no arrests.
Like yesterday, they're covering the gamut of issues, including Hong Kong's so-called umbrella revolution:
The #UmbrellaRevolution has come to Brisbane. Hopefully there's more brollies on the way. #G20Brisbane#G20pic.twitter.com/NyeeQJhl2
- Kieran Rooney (@KieranRooneyCM) November 16, 2014
This protest is a little bit busier. Oromo protesters calling for independence from Ethiopia. #G20Brisbane#g20pic.twitter.com/2DLK3umk2H
- Kieran Rooney (@KieranRooneyCM) November 16, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.27pm AEST
block-time published-time 1.01pm AEST
Crucial update here: The Koala who posed with Putin has been identified as 2-year-old female called Jimbelung. She's also destined for a wildlife park in Japan, according to the White House pool report. It also treats us to some frightening imagery involving the Queensland premier, Campbell Newman:
Jimbelung, the 2-year-old female koala who posed for pictures with POTUS and Vladimir Putin on Saturday, made a brief appearance in the G20 press center, making reporters forget about fiscal stimulus for a few minutes. The koala, who munched eucalyptus contentedly, is being sent from a wildlife park here to Japan as a gift.
The animal's handler said Jimbelung, which means friend, was too tired after her bilats with Putin and Obama to pose for pictures with the pool, but he made an exception when the premier of Queensland, Campbell Newman, showed up with outstretched arms and a retinue of local media.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.14pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.47pm AEST
#koaladiplomacy had a long history pic.twitter.com/O3yZ4i2IFv
- Chip Rolley (@ChipRolley) November 15, 2014
block-time published-time 12.44pm AEST
The New York Times has some more details of the wrangling over climate change, which has threatened to sideline the Abbott government's agenda for this G20 summit.
"You've got to be able to overcome old divides, look squarely at the science and reach a strong global climate agreement next year," Mr. Obama said. "If China and the United States can agree on this, then the world can agree on this. We can get this done."
Mr. Obama 's words carried an extra edge in Australia, where Prime Minister Tony Abbott is a blunt skeptic about the science behind climate change. He boasted to the leaders gathered for the meeting that his government had repealed a tax on carbon emissions - a key tool to curb the greenhouse gases that heat up the atmosphere.
Mr. Abbott tried to keep climate change off the agenda at the Group of 20 meeting, preferring to focus on jobs and economic growth. But Mr. Obama's $3 billion pledge to the Green Climate Fund, announced in his speech here, made that difficult.
It goes on :
Mr. Obama seemed well aware of what he was doing. Australia and the United States, he said, both have bad track records on carbon emissions because they share a frontier tradition and an abundance of fossil fuels - "which means," he said, "we've got to step up."
That line drew a burst of applause from the audience. Australian officials listened respectfully but left little doubt where they stood afterward.
"Australia is a resources-exporting economy: coal, gas, uranium," said Tim Nicholls, the treasurer and minister of trade of the State of Queensland. "We think a sensible debate is absolutely necessary, but we also think there is a future for coal, as there is for gas."
Read on here
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.38pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.32pm AEST
Australia resisting inclusion of Green Climate Fund in G20 communique
Australia is quietly fighting the US and EU to keep the G20 from making a strong statement on climate change action, Lenore Taylor writes in an extraordinary scoop :
Initially Australia didn't want climate change in the G20 communique at all. Then it spent weeks fighting to keep the language vague.
Now, Guardian Australia can reveal the original text of the end of summit statement, the revised text and the inside story of the G20 countries' fight over its wording.
Australia's treasurer, Joe Hockey, told the ABC Insiders program on Sunday morning that Australia did agree to include a paragraph on climate change in the first draft of the G20 communique. What he didn't say is that Australian negotiators have resisted attempts to strengthen it ever since.
Read the full story of the backroom battle here
block-time published-time 12.20pm AEST
This is interesting: two of the three countries involved in this morning's Australia-US-Japan dialogue have announced big money pledges for the new Green Climate Fund.
Can you guess which two?
United States and Japan Announce $4.5 Billion in Pledges to Green Climate Fund (GCF)
Making good on our commitment to support efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions and build climate resilience worldwide, the United States and Japan announced a total of up to $4.5 billion in pledges to the Green Climate Fund (GCF). This includes up to $3 billion from the United States and up to $1.5 billion from Japan, subject to respective domestic procedures and based on strong contributions from other donors. Our pledges build on those already announced by Germany, France, and other donors, which include developed and developing countries.
Our pledges will be reiterated at the GCF's pledging session on November 20 in Berlin, Germany, where additional countries are expected to announce pledges. By announcing significant pledges promptly and at the leader level, we aim to provide great momentum to the ongoing climate change negotiations toward a post-2020 agreement that is applicable to all, in which countries make ambitious and transparent commitments to reduce their emissions.
Today's announcement builds on a history of collective leadership by the United States, Japan, and other countries to support resilient and low-carbon development around the world. In 2008, our countries jointly spearheaded the establishment of the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs). Our pledges to the GCF are a continuation of that spirit of leadership. The GCF will mobilize investment from the private sector, whose resources and expertise will be essential to meet the climate challenge.
We encourage all countries that are able to join us in pledging to the GCF. We will continue working with our partners on the GCF Board and other stakeholders to make the GCF fully operational and ensure that it is an efficient and effective channel for climate finance.
block-time published-time 12.17pm AEST
Overheard being barked down a phone @G20Australia : "but it's for the President" (possibly "buttocks for the President").
- Ben Doherty (@BenDohertyCorro) November 16, 2014
Not a single detail is going to escape our reporters on the ground in Brisbane today.
block-time published-time 12.09pm AEST
We've just had announcement following a meeting this morning between the leaders of Australia, the United States and Japan. Daniel Hurst reports:
The leaders of Australia, Japan and the US have denounced Russia's "actions to destabilise eastern Ukraine" after a trilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G20 this morning. Tony Abbott, Shinzo Abe and Barack Obama "resolved to tackle pressing issues" including developments in Ukraine.In a joint statement, they condemned "Russia's purported annexation of Crimea and its actions to destabilise eastern Ukraine" and expressed support for "bringing to justice those responsible for the downing of flight Mhl" in July.
The leaders also reaffirmed the importance of degrading and defeating Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq and Syria and countering the threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters. They expressed support for ending the deadline Ebola virus epidemic in west Africa."The three leaders also underscored the strength of their regional cooperation, including eliminating the North Korean nuclear and missile threat; addressing human rights in North Korea including the abductions issue; and ensuring freedom of navigation and over-flight and the peaceful resolution of maritime disputes in accordance with international law, including through legal mechanisms such as arbitration," the statement said.The leaders also committed "to deepen the already strong security and defence cooperation" among the US, Australia and Japan.
U.S. President Barack Obama (L), Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe meet at the G20 summit in Brisbane November 16, 2014. Photograph: HANDOUT/REUTERS
block-time published-time 12.03pm AEST
Exclusion zones, snipers, bulletproof glass, fake fake Obama; the security of world leaders at the G20 summit has been a huge concern and organisers have gone all out. How then to explain allowing the globe's most powerful people to get so close to these clawed, chlamydia-riddled* menaces?
U.S. President Barack Obama laughs as holds a koala while Prime Minister of Australia Tony Abbott looks on during a photo opportunity on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Brisbane, Australia. Photograph: Andrew Taylor/AP
From the Victorian government's Koala management strategy:
Safe handling of Koalas requires experience and strength and should not be attempted by inexperienced persons... Koalas are powerful animals and have sharp claws, their handling by untrained people can lead to serious injury.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper holds a koala before the start of the first G20 meeting in Brisbane, Australia, 15 November 2014. Photograph: ANDREW TAYLOR / HANDOUT/EPA
Fact: "Koala cuddling" has been banned in New South Wales since 1997.
Myanmar's President Thein Sein holds a koala before the start of the first G20 meeting in Brisbane, Australia, 15 November 2014. Photograph: ANDREW TAYLOR / HANDOUT/EPA
"They may seem passive and sleepy, but come mating time, koalas morph into aggressive, smelly creatures that you'd never want to cuddle in a million years."
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott (L), German Chancellor Angela Merkel (2-R) and Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Christine Lagarde meet a koala bear before the start of the first G20 meeting in Brisbane, Australia, 15 November 2014. Photograph: ANDREW TAYLOR / HANDOUT/EPA
*This is a serious problem affecting Australia's precious Koala population and you can donate money to help here
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.13pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.42am AEST
Forget koalas. This is Australia, via my colleague Christian Bennett:
Australia taking a firm stance on pretentious coffee ordering at g20. Love it or leave it. pic.twitter.com/3bO0s4L1uk
- Christian Bennett (@christianobeno) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 11.38am AEST
A spot of cricket, via my colleague Daniel Hurst:
Journalists and observers in the media centre tired of waiting for the G20 leaders to sign off on their communique are enjoying a bit of beach cricket. Except that it's not really on the beach - it's inside the air-conditioned confines of the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre. But there is a surfboard behind the wickets at the Queensland/Brisbane stand. When people have had their fix of cricket they can step over to the pretend entrance to a Queenslander-style home. The tourism reps report that the brownies are popular. In the last couple of days, the stand has hosted koalas, snakes and bilbies for international media to have a look at. Howzat!
pic.twitter.com/FiLqpQWEbb
- Michael Safi (@safimichael) November 16, 2014
pic.twitter.com/hfa2iczT9U
- Michael Safi (@safimichael) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 11.30am AEST
Temperatures have just hit a stinking 31 degrees in Brisbane, on their way to an expected top of 41 degrees within a couple of hours. My colleague Christian Bennett reports there's plenty of G20-branded sunscreen on hand for the delegates, who I can only imagine are stunned human life can exist in these conditions.
Things Brandis should have had yesterday! G20 branded sunscreen. pic.twitter.com/hYFNHX5QeX
- Christian Bennett (@christianobeno) November 15, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.38am AEST
block-time published-time 11.22am AEST
Here's more from Lenore Taylor and Daniel Hurst on the ABC TV interview this morning with Australian treasurer Joe Hockey, in which he was asked whether he thought climate change was an impediment to economic growth:
"No, I don't. Absolutely not," he told the Insiders program.
He went on to downplay the post-2020 emission reduction commitments unveiled by Obama and Chinese president Xi Jinping on the eve of the G20 summit in Brisbane.
"Look at China. China is going to continue to increase emissions until 2030. It is going to continue increasing emissions to 2030," he said.
Hockey questioned Obama's ability to deliver on his new pledge, saying: "Barack Obama has to get any initiative on climate change through a hostile US Congress ... That's up to the US but so far he hasn't had great success. You never know. Hopefully he can do what he wants to do as president but we all face those challenges - but we have to do what we believe to be right for the nation; he is doing what he believes to be right of the United States."
Read the full story here
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.23am AEST
block-time published-time 11.05am AEST
The Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, has attended a trilateral meeting this morning with US president Barack Obama and the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe.
More details here from the White House pool report:
"Good morning," Obama said to Abbott, extending his hand. "How are you?"
"It's good to be here with two such economic and strategic partners,"Abbott said.
A Japanese journalist shouted something at the leaders as they prepared to sit down, after which they clasped hands across their chests.
Pool, now cheerfully attired in green bibs, is moving to a hold room.
Later this afternoon, the [US] President will meet European Leaders to discuss the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the situation in Ukraine. There will be a travel pool spray at the top. This meeting will take place at 2:15pm AEST.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.07am AEST
block-time published-time 10.59am AEST
Was the Obama fake a fake?
Among the more colourful stories to emerge yesterday was a world exclusive by the Brisbane tabloid, the Courier Mail, showing the first pictures of Barack Obama's presidential decoy.
Courier Mail story on Obama's decoy Photograph: Courier Mail/Twitter
Obama's decoy is an extremely rare sight, mainly for the reason that he doesn't actually exist. At least, that's according to the White House. Buzzfeed has done the digging :
BuzzFeed News contacted several members of President Obama's delegation who denied the president traveled with body doubles in separate cars - a practice popularised in modern times by former dictator Saddam Hussein.
Will the official denials be enough to put the story to rest? I'm guessing not.
block-time published-time 10.40am AEST
Climate change loomed large yesterday, despite the best efforts of the Australian government, which was accused of "blocking" the issue on the summit's agenda. Here's what else went down on the first day of the G20 Leaders' Summit in Brisbane:
Russian officials were forced to deny reports that president Vladimir Putin was leaving the summit earlier after receiving a frosty reception from world leaders over Russian aggression in Ukraine. The Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, gave Putin a particularly stinging welcome, telling him: "I guess I'll shake your hand but I have only one thing to say to you: You need to get out of Ukraine."
The Queensland government worked feverishly behind the scenes lobbying Unesco representatives to stop the Great Barrier Reef from being listed as "in danger" by the UN's cultural and heritage body.
Putin will be bracing for a "catastrophic" slump in oil prices as David Cameron said Europe would have no choice but to step up sanctions if the Russian president did not abide by previous agreements to respect Ukraine's independence.
The Australian treasurer, Joe Hockey, said governments risked losing their legitimacy in the eyes of the people if multinationals are allowed to continue avoid paying their fair share tax.
Less than a dozen protesters were charged despite sustained demonstrations throughout Saturday covering every issue imaginable. That's in contrast to Toronto's G20 meeting in 2010 which saw more than 1,100 people arrested.
U.S. president Barack Obamareasserted America's so-called pivot to the Asia-Pacific in an address at the University of Queensland, declaring that the majority of the American navy and air force would be based out of the region by 2020. "The United States is and always will be a Pacific power," Obama said.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.43am AEST
block-time published-time 10.22am AEST
Soaring temperatures and an increasingly isolated position on climate change have Australia feeling the heat in Brisbane. My colleague Lenore Taylor reports that British PM David Cameron has addressed Tony Abbott's position directly, telling Sky News:
Countries that have so far done the least have to think about what more they can do. I've had good and friendly discussions with prime minister Abbott about that.
He went on:
I hope [Australia will] do everything they can in the coming months to look at what more they can deliver, because when it comes to Paris if we want to get a global agreement everyone is going to have to bring something to the table.
Read the full story here
His remarks came after US president Barack Obama forced climate change onto the G20 agenda with a strong speech urging the world to rally behind a new global agreement in Paris next year, and pledging $3bn to a green climate fund that Abbott has previously said Australia won't contribute to.
Australia's treasurer, Joe Hockey, has tried to put the spotlight back onto the economy on ABC television this morning, telling Insiders host Barrie Cassidy: "This is an economic forum. This is about millions and millions of jobs. This is about getting millions of people out of poverty."
"We cannot afford to deal with climate change if governments are in recession or countries are facing huge economic challenges," he said.
BRISTANE, AUSTRALIA - NOVEMBER 15: U.S. President Barack Obama (R) and British Prime Minister David Cameron attend the opening session of the G20 Summit on November 15, 2014 in Brisbane, Australia. Photograph: Xinhua /Landov / Barcroft Media/Xinhua /Landov / Barcroft Media
block-time published-time 10.05am AEST
Good morning and welcome to our live coverage of today's ongoing G20 summit in Brisbane.
We'll recap Saturday's developments shortly. On the ground today we have a bumper team: Lenore Taylor, Josh Robertson, Daniel Hurst, Patrick Wintour, Christian Bennett and Ben Doherty.
What they'll be covering is actually a small mystery. The official press schedule lists a single event at 11am (Brisbane time) in which global policy experts will tell us "what to expect from the G20 summit".
And after that? A big fat "TBC", according to the schedule.
Today's G20 schedule
At the very least we can expect two round of talks, including one on energy, and a pledge to increase economic growth by at least 2%, before the summit's communique is signed and sealed this evening. We'll bring the events to you live all day, so stick with us.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.06am AEST
LOAD-DATE: November 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
296 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 16, 2014 Sunday 8:18 AM GMT
G20 leaders force Australia to back down on climate change language;
Communique calls on countries to contribute to green climate fund, after negotiations 'like trench warfare'The full text of the communique
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 968 words
World leaders have forced Australia to include stronger language on climate change in the G20 communique, but Tony Abbott told the summit that as the leader of a major coal producer he would be "standing up for coal".
The references demanded by other leaders, including the US president, Barack Obama, were reluctantly accepted by Australia at the last minute. They included a call for contributions to the international green climate fund that the prime minister has previously derided and for the "phasing out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies".
A European Union spokesman reportedly described the climate negotiations with Australia as being like "trench warfare". Other officials said it had been "very difficult" and protracted.
Speaking to the media after the summit, the Australian prme minister downplayed the importance of the "green climate fund" to which Obama pledged $3bn on Saturday and the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, $1.5bn on Sunday. He took a similar line on the new greenhouse reduction pledges unveiled by Obama and the Chinese president, Xi Jinping.
He said all nations "support strong action ... to address climate change", but added: "We are all going to approach this in our own way and there are a range of [climate] funds which are there."
Obama and the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, both urged G20 countries to contribute to the green climate fund, which is seen as critical to a successful outcome at crucial climate negotiations in Paris next year. In the end, at Australia's insistence, the communique called for contributions to financing funds "such as the green climate fund".
Obama said the US and Chinese agreement meant there was "no excuse for other nations" not to make similar commitments on greenhouse gas reductions.
But Abbott said by his reading the deal "means 80% of China's power needs in 2030 are still going to be provided by coal". He said coal was critical to lifting 1.3bn people out of poverty, and "what we need to do is to ensure that the coal-fired power stations we need are as efficient as possible".
The Australian treasurer, Joe Hockey, also downplayed the deal earlier on Sunday.
"Barack Obama has to get any initiative on climate change through a hostile US Congres," he said. "So far he hasn't had great success."
As Obama explained again on Sunday, the US "shaped that target based on existing authorities" to use Environment Protection Agency powers "rather than the need for additional congressional action".
Abbott began the closed-door discussion on energy on Sunday morning by telling the world leaders that "as the world's largest producer of coal, I'd like to stand up for coal", sources told Guardian Australia.
Speaking to the press after the meeting, Abbott denied Australia had been forced into climate discussions, saying "the very first draft [of the G20 communique] talked about climate change, all the way through we have been talking about energy efficiency and climate change".
As revealed by Guardian Australia, the first draft did include climate change, but in very general terms. But European countries and the United States argued until late on Saturday to force the host country to strengthen the words - including the commitment to the green climate fund, which Abbott has previously said Australia would not support.
Australia was also reluctant to include the reference to fossil fuel subsidies in the communique, but it was eventually included after forceful support from Obama. The communique calls on G20 members to "rationalise and phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies".
As the G20 progressed, the Queensland government was preparing to unveil new infrastructure spending to help the development of Australia's largest coal mine.
.Abbott, who recently said coal was "good for humanity", also endorsed the mine, proposed by the Indian company Adani, at the leaders' meeting.
The Queensland premier, Campbell Newman, has said the new spending would help coal development in the Galilee basin, which has been under a cloud because of the declining coal price.
The announcement is expected to be made during the visit of the Indian prime minister Narendra Modi, who is addressing federal parliament on Tuesday, and the chairman of the Adani group, Gautam Adani.
"We are prepared to invest in core, common-user infrastructure. The role of government is to make targeted investments to get something going and exit in a few years' time," Newman said .
"It will be open access [infrastructure]. We want a new coal basin to open."
In an interview from Brisbane with the Indian Express, Adani said the Australian government had given all environmental and regulatory clearances for the $7.5bn coal, rail and port project.
The Carmichael mine in the Galilee Basin is the one of the largest thermal coal mines in the world, and the largest in Australia. It requires a 388km rail line to a new terminal at Abbot Point.
But the project has been under pressure as coal prices fall to five-year lows.
Adani told the Indian Express a South Korean firm, Posco, had been given the contract to build the railway line and sources suggested the Newman government might be preparing to underwrite the project.
The director of energy finance studies for the Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, Tim Buckley, said the Newman government's plans were "absolutely farcical".
"I have not spoken to a single person in finance who thinks this can proceed or that it is commercially viable. Eight major international banks have said they won't go near it," he said.
Adani says it has already invested $2bn in Australia, but it has no equity here. It bought the rights to the Abbot Point port with loans from a syndicate headed by the Commonwealth Bank and Westpac, and another loan from the State Bank of India.
LOAD-DATE: November 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
297 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 16, 2014 Sunday 4:26 AM GMT
G20 Brisbane: Vladimir Putin departs after frosty reception from western leaders - live;
Russian president's staff say departure is on schedule and not a reaction to pressure over Ukraine crisis · What's the point of the G20, anyway?
BYLINE: Michael Safi
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 4423 words
block-time published-time 3.26pm AEST
Another big scoop from my colleague Lenore Taylor : Tony Abbott has told a G20 leaders' discussion on energy he was " standing up for coal " , as the Queensland government prepares to unveil new infrastructure spending to help the development of Australia's largest coal mine.
During the closed-door discussion on energy on Sunday morning, Abbott told the world leaders that "as the world's largest producer of coal, I'd like to stand up for coal", sources told Guardian Australia. Abbott, who recently said coal was "good for humanity", also endorsed the mine, proposed by the Indian company Adani, to the meeting.
Here's the full story
block-time published-time 3.06pm AEST
Trade union leaders have complained they have been subject to an effective lockout from the heart of G20 discussions by Tony Abbott, my colleague Patrick Wintour writes.
Frances O'Grady, the general secretary of the British Trades Union Congress, said the Australian prime minister had downgraded the status of labour leaders attending the summit in an unprecedented manner, forcing them to seek individual meetings with world leaders because they did not hold equal status alongside the business group.
Here's the full story
block-time published-time 2.59pm AEST
Here's the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, departing Brisbane airport just now.
Putin departs Photograph: ABC News 24
My colleague Ben Doherty writes:
Vladimir has left for the airport, he spoke to Russian reporters before he left, praising the 'constructive atmosphere' of the G20 and saying reports of a rift between he and Western leaders were exaggerations of the media.
He has to leave straight away because he has to get back to Moscow, and to work, he said.
block-time published-time 2.55pm AEST
It's a brutally hot 37 degrees in Brisbane at the moment, just as the Washington Post reports that last month was the hottest October on record, keeping 2014 on track to be the warmest year ever recorded. Read it and weep.
block-time published-time 2.50pm AEST
Do svidaniya, gospodin Putin
A farewell wave and a smile from Russian President Vladimir Putin as he departs his hotel for the airport pic.twitter.com/0y171hlW4H
- Alex Ellinghausen (@ellinghausen) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 2.39pm AEST
Information now filtering in about what Russian president Vladimir Putin told Russian reporters at a press conference at his hotel.
Putin says G20 atmosphere was good, blames Australian media for rumors of discontent #G20#Putin
- Stephanie Burnett (@Stephy_Burnett) November 16, 2014
Translation of latest RT: "Putin: Talk about Ukraine at bilateral meetings were frank , informative and helpful" #G20
- Erienne Lette (@ErienneLette) November 16, 2014
RT @Anna_Iva_RT - Putin: The Prime Minister of Australia, has created a favorable atmosphere for teamwork #G20
- Erienne Lette (@ErienneLette) November 16, 2014
RT @Anna_Iva_RT -"Putin: Mr Abbott's experience is very good. He's a good moderator and professional partner" #G20
- Erienne Lette (@ErienneLette) November 16, 2014
Translation: RT @Anna_Iva_RT "Putin: I believe that our job is finished and completed with success" #G20
- Erienne Lette (@ErienneLette) November 16, 2014
Putin explains why he didn't attend Sunday #G20 breakfast: sent Finance Minister because of tight sched, said Abbott was understanding
- Stephanie Burnett (@Stephy_Burnett) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 2.35pm AEST
Presented without comment:
#G20 RT @BuzzFeedOz : This Vine Shows Obama Getting Handshake Blanked At #G20Brisbanehttps://t.co/DpVb8PVfkg
- ABC Radio Brisbane (@612brisbane) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 2.30pm AEST
ABC News is reporting that Russian president Vladimir Putin has finished his press conference and will be flying out of Brisbane in about 20 minutes, which his staff say was always the plan, and not a reaction to the frosty reception he's received from other G20 leaders.
Russian ?????? planes preparing to leave Brisbane. #G20#Putin@abcnewspic.twitter.com/6ZGaRLvg1F
- David Lewis (@dlewis89) November 16, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 2.35pm AEST
block-time published-time 2.26pm AEST
It's been a quiet-ish couple of hours as leaders get down to business inside Brisbane's convention centre, but we're bracing for an afternoon of press conferences and the release of the summit's communique. Here's the schedule - all in Brisbane time.
Schedule of Sunday afternoon's press conferences Photograph: Guardian
So we can expect to hear from Tony Abbott in about an hour.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 2.29pm AEST
block-time published-time 2.04pm AEST
My colleague Ben Doherty passes on that Russian president Vladimir Putin has returned to his hotel to speak to Russian reporters and may be leaving Brisbane within the hour, without fronting up to Western media.
Russian president Vladimir Putin has returned to his #G20 hotel. Rumoured to be leaving Brisbane within an hour or so pic.twitter.com/339zgal5Fe
- Luke Royes (@lukeroyes) November 16, 2014
Ben says Putin's advisers are not answering calls.
Channel Nine's Alex Bernhardt says she tried to get into Putin's presser but was denied access.
Just tried to get into Putin press conference. Spotted we were Aus media and access denied. @9NewsBrisbane#9News
- Alex Bernhardt (@ABernhardt9) November 16, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 2.14pm AEST
block-time published-time 2.02pm AEST
Protests are starting to kick up again, including a 300-strong march through Brisbane that commenced by setting the Australian flag alight.
All that's left of an Australian flag after anti-G20 protesters set it on fire ahead of their march through the city. pic.twitter.com/nZbvdAvDXX
- 7News Brisbane (@7NewsBrisbane) November 16, 2014
The flag has actually held up rather well, if you ask me. It's also being lofted upside down by demonstrators:
Anti-G20 protesters march through #Brisbane city with the Australian flag upside down. #G20#7Newspic.twitter.com/Y9k4PwA3cJ
- 7News Brisbane (@7NewsBrisbane) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 1.39pm AEST
Last koala photo, I promise. But these are fighting words from New Zealand's prime minister John Key:
After what the Kiwis did to Australia in the league final, there was some hesitation on the koala's part. pic.twitter.com/WHQreVPI4T
- John Key (@johnkeypm) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 1.35pm AEST
I'm told that Prime Minister Tony Abbott is privately "seething" at Obama's speech yesterday. To be expected I suppose...
- Peter van Onselen (@vanOnselenP) November 16, 2014
All eyes now on whether the G20 communique, set to be released within hours, will include strong references to climate change and especially the new Green Climate Fund established by the United States.
block-time published-time 1.21pm AEST
Police pat a punter's hot and tired pooch at South Bank as Operation Good Cop continues at #G20pic.twitter.com/y6M1T3w3w8
- Greg Stolz (@GregStolzJourno) November 16, 2014
Reports are that protests are way down on yesterday; as yet no arrests.
Like yesterday, they're covering the gamut of issues, including Hong Kong's so-called umbrella revolution:
The #UmbrellaRevolution has come to Brisbane. Hopefully there's more brollies on the way. #G20Brisbane#G20pic.twitter.com/NyeeQJhl2
- Kieran Rooney (@KieranRooneyCM) November 16, 2014
This protest is a little bit busier. Oromo protesters calling for independence from Ethiopia. #G20Brisbane#g20pic.twitter.com/2DLK3umk2H
- Kieran Rooney (@KieranRooneyCM) November 16, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.27pm AEST
block-time published-time 1.01pm AEST
Crucial update here: The Koala who posed with Putin has been identified as 2-year-old female called Jimbelung. She's also destined for a wildlife park in Japan, according to the White House pool report. It also treats us to some frightening imagery involving the Queensland premier, Campbell Newman:
Jimbelung, the 2-year-old female koala who posed for pictures with POTUS and Vladimir Putin on Saturday, made a brief appearance in the G20 press center, making reporters forget about fiscal stimulus for a few minutes. The koala, who munched eucalyptus contentedly, is being sent from a wildlife park here to Japan as a gift.
The animal's handler said Jimbelung, which means friend, was too tired after her bilats with Putin and Obama to pose for pictures with the pool, but he made an exception when the premier of Queensland, Campbell Newman, showed up with outstretched arms and a retinue of local media.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.14pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.47pm AEST
#koaladiplomacy had a long history pic.twitter.com/O3yZ4i2IFv
- Chip Rolley (@ChipRolley) November 15, 2014
block-time published-time 12.44pm AEST
The New York Times has some more details of the wrangling over climate change, which has threatened to sideline the Abbott government's agenda for this G20 summit.
"You've got to be able to overcome old divides, look squarely at the science and reach a strong global climate agreement next year," Mr. Obama said. "If China and the United States can agree on this, then the world can agree on this. We can get this done."
Mr. Obama 's words carried an extra edge in Australia, where Prime Minister Tony Abbott is a blunt skeptic about the science behind climate change. He boasted to the leaders gathered for the meeting that his government had repealed a tax on carbon emissions - a key tool to curb the greenhouse gases that heat up the atmosphere.
Mr. Abbott tried to keep climate change off the agenda at the Group of 20 meeting, preferring to focus on jobs and economic growth. But Mr. Obama's $3 billion pledge to the Green Climate Fund, announced in his speech here, made that difficult.
It goes on :
Mr. Obama seemed well aware of what he was doing. Australia and the United States, he said, both have bad track records on carbon emissions because they share a frontier tradition and an abundance of fossil fuels - "which means," he said, "we've got to step up."
That line drew a burst of applause from the audience. Australian officials listened respectfully but left little doubt where they stood afterward.
"Australia is a resources-exporting economy: coal, gas, uranium," said Tim Nicholls, the treasurer and minister of trade of the State of Queensland. "We think a sensible debate is absolutely necessary, but we also think there is a future for coal, as there is for gas."
Read on here
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.38pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.32pm AEST
Australia resisting inclusion of Green Climate Fund in G20 communique
Australia is quietly fighting the US and EU to keep the G20 from making a strong statement on climate change action, Lenore Taylor writes in an extraordinary scoop :
Initially Australia didn't want climate change in the G20 communique at all. Then it spent weeks fighting to keep the language vague.
Now, Guardian Australia can reveal the original text of the end of summit statement, the revised text and the inside story of the G20 countries' fight over its wording.
Australia's treasurer, Joe Hockey, told the ABC Insiders program on Sunday morning that Australia did agree to include a paragraph on climate change in the first draft of the G20 communique. What he didn't say is that Australian negotiators have resisted attempts to strengthen it ever since.
Read the full story of the backroom battle here
block-time published-time 12.20pm AEST
This is interesting: two of the three countries involved in this morning's Australia-US-Japan dialogue have announced big money pledges for the new Green Climate Fund.
Can you guess which two?
United States and Japan Announce $4.5 Billion in Pledges to Green Climate Fund (GCF)
Making good on our commitment to support efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions and build climate resilience worldwide, the United States and Japan announced a total of up to $4.5 billion in pledges to the Green Climate Fund (GCF). This includes up to $3 billion from the United States and up to $1.5 billion from Japan, subject to respective domestic procedures and based on strong contributions from other donors. Our pledges build on those already announced by Germany, France, and other donors, which include developed and developing countries.
Our pledges will be reiterated at the GCF's pledging session on November 20 in Berlin, Germany, where additional countries are expected to announce pledges. By announcing significant pledges promptly and at the leader level, we aim to provide great momentum to the ongoing climate change negotiations toward a post-2020 agreement that is applicable to all, in which countries make ambitious and transparent commitments to reduce their emissions.
Today's announcement builds on a history of collective leadership by the United States, Japan, and other countries to support resilient and low-carbon development around the world. In 2008, our countries jointly spearheaded the establishment of the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs). Our pledges to the GCF are a continuation of that spirit of leadership. The GCF will mobilize investment from the private sector, whose resources and expertise will be essential to meet the climate challenge.
We encourage all countries that are able to join us in pledging to the GCF. We will continue working with our partners on the GCF Board and other stakeholders to make the GCF fully operational and ensure that it is an efficient and effective channel for climate finance.
block-time published-time 12.17pm AEST
Overheard being barked down a phone @G20Australia : "but it's for the President" (possibly "buttocks for the President").
- Ben Doherty (@BenDohertyCorro) November 16, 2014
Not a single detail is going to escape our reporters on the ground in Brisbane today.
block-time published-time 12.09pm AEST
We've just had announcement following a meeting this morning between the leaders of Australia, the United States and Japan. Daniel Hurst reports:
The leaders of Australia, Japan and the US have denounced Russia's "actions to destabilise eastern Ukraine" after a trilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G20 this morning. Tony Abbott, Shinzo Abe and Barack Obama "resolved to tackle pressing issues" including developments in Ukraine.In a joint statement, they condemned "Russia's purported annexation of Crimea and its actions to destabilise eastern Ukraine" and expressed support for "bringing to justice those responsible for the downing of flight Mhl" in July.
The leaders also reaffirmed the importance of degrading and defeating Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq and Syria and countering the threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters. They expressed support for ending the deadline Ebola virus epidemic in west Africa."The three leaders also underscored the strength of their regional cooperation, including eliminating the North Korean nuclear and missile threat; addressing human rights in North Korea including the abductions issue; and ensuring freedom of navigation and over-flight and the peaceful resolution of maritime disputes in accordance with international law, including through legal mechanisms such as arbitration," the statement said.The leaders also committed "to deepen the already strong security and defence cooperation" among the US, Australia and Japan.
U.S. President Barack Obama (L), Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe meet at the G20 summit in Brisbane November 16, 2014. Photograph: HANDOUT/REUTERS
block-time published-time 12.03pm AEST
Exclusion zones, snipers, bulletproof glass, fake fake Obama; the security of world leaders at the G20 summit has been a huge concern and organisers have gone all out. How then to explain allowing the globe's most powerful people to get so close to these clawed, chlamydia-riddled* menaces?
U.S. President Barack Obama laughs as holds a koala while Prime Minister of Australia Tony Abbott looks on during a photo opportunity on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Brisbane, Australia. Photograph: Andrew Taylor/AP
From the Victorian government's Koala management strategy:
Safe handling of Koalas requires experience and strength and should not be attempted by inexperienced persons... Koalas are powerful animals and have sharp claws, their handling by untrained people can lead to serious injury.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper holds a koala before the start of the first G20 meeting in Brisbane, Australia, 15 November 2014. Photograph: ANDREW TAYLOR / HANDOUT/EPA
Fact: "Koala cuddling" has been banned in New South Wales since 1997.
Myanmar's President Thein Sein holds a koala before the start of the first G20 meeting in Brisbane, Australia, 15 November 2014. Photograph: ANDREW TAYLOR / HANDOUT/EPA
"They may seem passive and sleepy, but come mating time, koalas morph into aggressive, smelly creatures that you'd never want to cuddle in a million years."
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott (L), German Chancellor Angela Merkel (2-R) and Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Christine Lagarde meet a koala bear before the start of the first G20 meeting in Brisbane, Australia, 15 November 2014. Photograph: ANDREW TAYLOR / HANDOUT/EPA
*This is a serious problem affecting Australia's precious Koala population and you can donate money to help here
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.13pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.42am AEST
Forget koalas. This is Australia, via my colleague Christian Bennett:
Australia taking a firm stance on pretentious coffee ordering at g20. Love it or leave it. pic.twitter.com/3bO0s4L1uk
- Christian Bennett (@christianobeno) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 11.38am AEST
A spot of cricket, via my colleague Daniel Hurst:
Journalists and observers in the media centre tired of waiting for the G20 leaders to sign off on their communique are enjoying a bit of beach cricket. Except that it's not really on the beach - it's inside the air-conditioned confines of the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre. But there is a surfboard behind the wickets at the Queensland/Brisbane stand. When people have had their fix of cricket they can step over to the pretend entrance to a Queenslander-style home. The tourism reps report that the brownies are popular. In the last couple of days, the stand has hosted koalas, snakes and bilbies for international media to have a look at. Howzat!
pic.twitter.com/FiLqpQWEbb
- Michael Safi (@safimichael) November 16, 2014
pic.twitter.com/hfa2iczT9U
- Michael Safi (@safimichael) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 11.30am AEST
Temperatures have just hit a stinking 31 degrees in Brisbane, on their way to an expected top of 41 degrees within a couple of hours. My colleague Christian Bennett reports there's plenty of G20-branded sunscreen on hand for the delegates, who I can only imagine are stunned human life can exist in these conditions.
Things Brandis should have had yesterday! G20 branded sunscreen. pic.twitter.com/hYFNHX5QeX
- Christian Bennett (@christianobeno) November 15, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.38am AEST
block-time published-time 11.22am AEST
Here's more from Lenore Taylor and Daniel Hurst on the ABC TV interview this morning with Australian treasurer Joe Hockey, in which he was asked whether he thought climate change was an impediment to economic growth:
"No, I don't. Absolutely not," he told the Insiders program.
He went on to downplay the post-2020 emission reduction commitments unveiled by Obama and Chinese president Xi Jinping on the eve of the G20 summit in Brisbane.
"Look at China. China is going to continue to increase emissions until 2030. It is going to continue increasing emissions to 2030," he said.
Hockey questioned Obama's ability to deliver on his new pledge, saying: "Barack Obama has to get any initiative on climate change through a hostile US Congress ... That's up to the US but so far he hasn't had great success. You never know. Hopefully he can do what he wants to do as president but we all face those challenges - but we have to do what we believe to be right for the nation; he is doing what he believes to be right of the United States."
Read the full story here
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.23am AEST
block-time published-time 11.05am AEST
The Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, has attended a trilateral meeting this morning with US president Barack Obama and the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe.
More details here from the White House pool report:
"Good morning," Obama said to Abbott, extending his hand. "How are you?"
"It's good to be here with two such economic and strategic partners,"Abbott said.
A Japanese journalist shouted something at the leaders as they prepared to sit down, after which they clasped hands across their chests.
Pool, now cheerfully attired in green bibs, is moving to a hold room.
Later this afternoon, the [US] President will meet European Leaders to discuss the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the situation in Ukraine. There will be a travel pool spray at the top. This meeting will take place at 2:15pm AEST.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.07am AEST
block-time published-time 10.59am AEST
Was the Obama fake a fake?
Among the more colourful stories to emerge yesterday was a world exclusive by the Brisbane tabloid, the Courier Mail, showing the first pictures of Barack Obama's presidential decoy.
Courier Mail story on Obama's decoy Photograph: Courier Mail/Twitter
Obama's decoy is an extremely rare sight, mainly for the reason that he doesn't actually exist. At least, that's according to the White House. Buzzfeed has done the digging :
BuzzFeed News contacted several members of President Obama's delegation who denied the president traveled with body doubles in separate cars - a practice popularised in modern times by former dictator Saddam Hussein.
Will the official denials be enough to put the story to rest? I'm guessing not.
block-time published-time 10.40am AEST
Climate change loomed large yesterday, despite the best efforts of the Australian government, which was accused of "blocking" the issue on the summit's agenda. Here's what else went down on the first day of the G20 Leaders' Summit in Brisbane:
Russian officials were forced to deny reports that president Vladimir Putin was leaving the summit earlier after receiving a frosty reception from world leaders over Russian aggression in Ukraine. The Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, gave Putin a particularly stinging welcome, telling him: "I guess I'll shake your hand but I have only one thing to say to you: You need to get out of Ukraine."
The Queensland government worked feverishly behind the scenes lobbying Unesco representatives to stop the Great Barrier Reef from being listed as "in danger" by the UN's cultural and heritage body.
Putin will be bracing for a "catastrophic" slump in oil prices as David Cameron said Europe would have no choice but to step up sanctions if the Russian president did not abide by previous agreements to respect Ukraine's independence.
The Australian treasurer, Joe Hockey, said governments risked losing their legitimacy in the eyes of the people if multinationals are allowed to continue avoid paying their fair share tax.
Less than a dozen protesters were charged despite sustained demonstrations throughout Saturday covering every issue imaginable. That's in contrast to Toronto's G20 meeting in 2010 which saw more than 1,100 people arrested.
U.S. president Barack Obamareasserted America's so-called pivot to the Asia-Pacific in an address at the University of Queensland, declaring that the majority of the American navy and air force would be based out of the region by 2020. "The United States is and always will be a Pacific power," Obama said.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.43am AEST
block-time published-time 10.22am AEST
Soaring temperatures and an increasingly isolated position on climate change have Australia feeling the heat in Brisbane. My colleague Lenore Taylor reports that British PM David Cameron has addressed Tony Abbott's position directly, telling Sky News:
Countries that have so far done the least have to think about what more they can do. I've had good and friendly discussions with prime minister Abbott about that.
He went on:
I hope [Australia will] do everything they can in the coming months to look at what more they can deliver, because when it comes to Paris if we want to get a global agreement everyone is going to have to bring something to the table.
Read the full story here
His remarks came after US president Barack Obama forced climate change onto the G20 agenda with a strong speech urging the world to rally behind a new global agreement in Paris next year, and pledging $3bn to a green climate fund that Abbott has previously said Australia won't contribute to.
Australia's treasurer, Joe Hockey, has tried to put the spotlight back onto the economy on ABC television this morning, telling Insiders host Barrie Cassidy: "This is an economic forum. This is about millions and millions of jobs. This is about getting millions of people out of poverty."
"We cannot afford to deal with climate change if governments are in recession or countries are facing huge economic challenges," he said.
BRISTANE, AUSTRALIA - NOVEMBER 15: U.S. President Barack Obama (R) and British Prime Minister David Cameron attend the opening session of the G20 Summit on November 15, 2014 in Brisbane, Australia. Photograph: Xinhua /Landov / Barcroft Media/Xinhua /Landov / Barcroft Media
block-time published-time 10.05am AEST
Good morning and welcome to our live coverage of today's ongoing G20 summit in Brisbane.
We'll recap Saturday's developments shortly. On the ground today we have a bumper team: Lenore Taylor, Josh Robertson, Daniel Hurst, Patrick Wintour, Christian Bennett and Ben Doherty.
What they'll be covering is actually a small mystery. The official press schedule lists a single event at 11am (Brisbane time) in which global policy experts will tell us "what to expect from the G20 summit".
And after that? A big fat "TBC", according to the schedule.
Today's G20 schedule
At the very least we can expect two round of talks, including one on energy, and a pledge to increase economic growth by at least 2%, before the summit's communique is signed and sealed this evening. We'll bring the events to you live all day, so stick with us.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.06am AEST
LOAD-DATE: November 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
298 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 16, 2014 Sunday 2:39 AM GMT
G20 Brisbane: climate change in spotlight on day two - live;
Australian hosts under pressure over emissions as summit of the world's 20 largest economies continues in Brisbane · What's the point of the G20, anyway?
BYLINE: Michael Safi
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 3401 words
block-time published-time 1.39pm AEST
Last koala photo, I promise. But these are fighting words from New Zealand's prime minister John Key:
After what the Kiwis did to Australia in the league final, there was some hesitation on the koala's part. pic.twitter.com/WHQreVPI4T
- John Key (@johnkeypm) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 1.35pm AEST
I'm told that Prime Minister Tony Abbott is privately "seething" at Obama's speech yesterday. To be expected I suppose...
- Peter van Onselen (@vanOnselenP) November 16, 2014
All eyes now on whether the G20 communique, set to be released within hours, will include strong references to climate change and especially the new Green Climate Fund established by the United States.
block-time published-time 1.21pm AEST
Police pat a punter's hot and tired pooch at South Bank as Operation Good Cop continues at #G20pic.twitter.com/y6M1T3w3w8
- Greg Stolz (@GregStolzJourno) November 16, 2014
Reports are that protests are way down on yesterday; as yet no arrests.
Like yesterday, they're covering the gamut of issues, including Hong Kong's so-called umbrella revolution:
The #UmbrellaRevolution has come to Brisbane. Hopefully there's more brollies on the way. #G20Brisbane#G20pic.twitter.com/NyeeQJhl2
- Kieran Rooney (@KieranRooneyCM) November 16, 2014
This protest is a little bit busier. Oromo protesters calling for independence from Ethiopia. #G20Brisbane#g20pic.twitter.com/2DLK3umk2H
- Kieran Rooney (@KieranRooneyCM) November 16, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.27pm AEST
block-time published-time 1.01pm AEST
Crucial update here: The Koala who posed with Putin has been identified as 2-year-old female called Jimbelung. She's also destined for a wildlife park in Japan, according to the White House pool report. It also treats us to some frightening imagery involving the Queensland premier, Campbell Newman:
Jimbelung, the 2-year-old female koala who posed for pictures with POTUS and Vladimir Putin on Saturday, made a brief appearance in the G20 press center, making reporters forget about fiscal stimulus for a few minutes. The koala, who munched eucalyptus contentedly, is being sent from a wildlife park here to Japan as a gift.
The animal's handler said Jimbelung, which means friend, was too tired after her bilats with Putin and Obama to pose for pictures with the pool, but he made an exception when the premier of Queensland, Campbell Newman, showed up with outstretched arms and a retinue of local media.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.14pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.47pm AEST
#koaladiplomacy had a long history pic.twitter.com/O3yZ4i2IFv
- Chip Rolley (@ChipRolley) November 15, 2014
block-time published-time 12.44pm AEST
The New York Times has some more details of the wrangling over climate change, which has threatened to sideline the Abbott government's agenda for this G20 summit.
"You've got to be able to overcome old divides, look squarely at the science and reach a strong global climate agreement next year," Mr. Obama said. "If China and the United States can agree on this, then the world can agree on this. We can get this done."
Mr. Obama 's words carried an extra edge in Australia, where Prime Minister Tony Abbott is a blunt skeptic about the science behind climate change. He boasted to the leaders gathered for the meeting that his government had repealed a tax on carbon emissions - a key tool to curb the greenhouse gases that heat up the atmosphere.
Mr. Abbott tried to keep climate change off the agenda at the Group of 20 meeting, preferring to focus on jobs and economic growth. But Mr. Obama's $3 billion pledge to the Green Climate Fund, announced in his speech here, made that difficult.
It goes on :
Mr. Obama seemed well aware of what he was doing. Australia and the United States, he said, both have bad track records on carbon emissions because they share a frontier tradition and an abundance of fossil fuels - "which means," he said, "we've got to step up."
That line drew a burst of applause from the audience. Australian officials listened respectfully but left little doubt where they stood afterward.
"Australia is a resources-exporting economy: coal, gas, uranium," said Tim Nicholls, the treasurer and minister of trade of the State of Queensland. "We think a sensible debate is absolutely necessary, but we also think there is a future for coal, as there is for gas."
Read on here
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.38pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.32pm AEST
Australia resisting inclusion of Green Climate Fund in G20 communique
Australia is quietly fighting the US and EU to keep the G20 from making a strong statement on climate change action, Lenore Taylor writes in an extraordinary scoop :
Initially Australia didn't want climate change in the G20 communique at all. Then it spent weeks fighting to keep the language vague.
Now, Guardian Australia can reveal the original text of the end of summit statement, the revised text and the inside story of the G20 countries' fight over its wording.
Australia's treasurer, Joe Hockey, told the ABC Insiders program on Sunday morning that Australia did agree to include a paragraph on climate change in the first draft of the G20 communique. What he didn't say is that Australian negotiators have resisted attempts to strengthen it ever since.
Read the full story of the backroom battle here
block-time published-time 12.20pm AEST
This is interesting: two of the three countries involved in this morning's Australia-US-Japan dialogue have announced big money pledges for the new Green Climate Fund.
Can you guess which two?
United States and Japan Announce $4.5 Billion in Pledges to Green Climate Fund (GCF)
Making good on our commitment to support efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions and build climate resilience worldwide, the United States and Japan announced a total of up to $4.5 billion in pledges to the Green Climate Fund (GCF). This includes up to $3 billion from the United States and up to $1.5 billion from Japan, subject to respective domestic procedures and based on strong contributions from other donors. Our pledges build on those already announced by Germany, France, and other donors, which include developed and developing countries.
Our pledges will be reiterated at the GCF's pledging session on November 20 in Berlin, Germany, where additional countries are expected to announce pledges. By announcing significant pledges promptly and at the leader level, we aim to provide great momentum to the ongoing climate change negotiations toward a post-2020 agreement that is applicable to all, in which countries make ambitious and transparent commitments to reduce their emissions.
Today's announcement builds on a history of collective leadership by the United States, Japan, and other countries to support resilient and low-carbon development around the world. In 2008, our countries jointly spearheaded the establishment of the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs). Our pledges to the GCF are a continuation of that spirit of leadership. The GCF will mobilize investment from the private sector, whose resources and expertise will be essential to meet the climate challenge.
We encourage all countries that are able to join us in pledging to the GCF. We will continue working with our partners on the GCF Board and other stakeholders to make the GCF fully operational and ensure that it is an efficient and effective channel for climate finance.
block-time published-time 12.17pm AEST
Overheard being barked down a phone @G20Australia : "but it's for the President" (possibly "buttocks for the President").
- Ben Doherty (@BenDohertyCorro) November 16, 2014
Not a single detail is going to escape our reporters on the ground in Brisbane today.
block-time published-time 12.09pm AEST
We've just had announcement following a meeting this morning between the leaders of Australia, the United States and Japan. Daniel Hurst reports:
The leaders of Australia, Japan and the US have denounced Russia's "actions to destabilise eastern Ukraine" after a trilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G20 this morning. Tony Abbott, Shinzo Abe and Barack Obama "resolved to tackle pressing issues" including developments in Ukraine.In a joint statement, they condemned "Russia's purported annexation of Crimea and its actions to destabilise eastern Ukraine" and expressed support for "bringing to justice those responsible for the downing of flight Mhl" in July.
The leaders also reaffirmed the importance of degrading and defeating Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq and Syria and countering the threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters. They expressed support for ending the deadline Ebola virus epidemic in west Africa."The three leaders also underscored the strength of their regional cooperation, including eliminating the North Korean nuclear and missile threat; addressing human rights in North Korea including the abductions issue; and ensuring freedom of navigation and over-flight and the peaceful resolution of maritime disputes in accordance with international law, including through legal mechanisms such as arbitration," the statement said.The leaders also committed "to deepen the already strong security and defence cooperation" among the US, Australia and Japan.
U.S. President Barack Obama (L), Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe meet at the G20 summit in Brisbane November 16, 2014. Photograph: HANDOUT/REUTERS
block-time published-time 12.03pm AEST
Exclusion zones, snipers, bulletproof glass, fake fake Obama; the security of world leaders at the G20 summit has been a huge concern and organisers have gone all out. How then to explain allowing the globe's most powerful people to get so close to these clawed, chlamydia-riddled* menaces?
U.S. President Barack Obama laughs as holds a koala while Prime Minister of Australia Tony Abbott looks on during a photo opportunity on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Brisbane, Australia. Photograph: Andrew Taylor/AP
From the Victorian government's Koala management strategy:
Safe handling of Koalas requires experience and strength and should not be attempted by inexperienced persons... Koalas are powerful animals and have sharp claws, their handling by untrained people can lead to serious injury.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper holds a koala before the start of the first G20 meeting in Brisbane, Australia, 15 November 2014. Photograph: ANDREW TAYLOR / HANDOUT/EPA
Fact: "Koala cuddling" has been banned in New South Wales since 1997.
Myanmar's President Thein Sein holds a koala before the start of the first G20 meeting in Brisbane, Australia, 15 November 2014. Photograph: ANDREW TAYLOR / HANDOUT/EPA
"They may seem passive and sleepy, but come mating time, koalas morph into aggressive, smelly creatures that you'd never want to cuddle in a million years."
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott (L), German Chancellor Angela Merkel (2-R) and Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Christine Lagarde meet a koala bear before the start of the first G20 meeting in Brisbane, Australia, 15 November 2014. Photograph: ANDREW TAYLOR / HANDOUT/EPA
*This is a serious problem affecting Australia's precious Koala population and you can donate money to help here
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.13pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.42am AEST
Forget koalas. This is Australia, via my colleague Christian Bennett:
Australia taking a firm stance on pretentious coffee ordering at g20. Love it or leave it. pic.twitter.com/3bO0s4L1uk
- Christian Bennett (@christianobeno) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 11.38am AEST
A spot of cricket, via my colleague Daniel Hurst:
Journalists and observers in the media centre tired of waiting for the G20 leaders to sign off on their communique are enjoying a bit of beach cricket. Except that it's not really on the beach - it's inside the air-conditioned confines of the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre. But there is a surfboard behind the wickets at the Queensland/Brisbane stand. When people have had their fix of cricket they can step over to the pretend entrance to a Queenslander-style home. The tourism reps report that the brownies are popular. In the last couple of days, the stand has hosted koalas, snakes and bilbies for international media to have a look at. Howzat!
pic.twitter.com/FiLqpQWEbb
- Michael Safi (@safimichael) November 16, 2014
pic.twitter.com/hfa2iczT9U
- Michael Safi (@safimichael) November 16, 2014
block-time published-time 11.30am AEST
Temperatures have just hit a stinking 31 degrees in Brisbane, on their way to an expected top of 41 degrees within a couple of hours. My colleague Christian Bennett reports there's plenty of G20-branded sunscreen on hand for the delegates, who I can only imagine are stunned human life can exist in these conditions.
Things Brandis should have had yesterday! G20 branded sunscreen. pic.twitter.com/hYFNHX5QeX
- Christian Bennett (@christianobeno) November 15, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.38am AEST
block-time published-time 11.22am AEST
Here's more from Lenore Taylor and Daniel Hurst on the ABC TV interview this morning with Australian treasurer Joe Hockey, in which he was asked whether he thought climate change was an impediment to economic growth:
"No, I don't. Absolutely not," he told the Insiders program.
He went on to downplay the post-2020 emission reduction commitments unveiled by Obama and Chinese president Xi Jinping on the eve of the G20 summit in Brisbane.
"Look at China. China is going to continue to increase emissions until 2030. It is going to continue increasing emissions to 2030," he said.
Hockey questioned Obama's ability to deliver on his new pledge, saying: "Barack Obama has to get any initiative on climate change through a hostile US Congress ... That's up to the US but so far he hasn't had great success. You never know. Hopefully he can do what he wants to do as president but we all face those challenges - but we have to do what we believe to be right for the nation; he is doing what he believes to be right of the United States."
Read the full story here
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.23am AEST
block-time published-time 11.05am AEST
The Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, has attended a trilateral meeting this morning with US president Barack Obama and the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe.
More details here from the White House pool report:
"Good morning," Obama said to Abbott, extending his hand. "How are you?"
"It's good to be here with two such economic and strategic partners,"Abbott said.
A Japanese journalist shouted something at the leaders as they prepared to sit down, after which they clasped hands across their chests.
Pool, now cheerfully attired in green bibs, is moving to a hold room.
Later this afternoon, the [US] President will meet European Leaders to discuss the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the situation in Ukraine. There will be a travel pool spray at the top. This meeting will take place at 2:15pm AEST.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.07am AEST
block-time published-time 10.59am AEST
Was the Obama fake a fake?
Among the more colourful stories to emerge yesterday was a world exclusive by the Brisbane tabloid, the Courier Mail, showing the first pictures of Barack Obama's presidential decoy.
Courier Mail story on Obama's decoy Photograph: Courier Mail/Twitter
Obama's decoy is an extremely rare sight, mainly for the reason that he doesn't actually exist. At least, that's according to the White House. Buzzfeed has done the digging :
BuzzFeed News contacted several members of President Obama's delegation who denied the president traveled with body doubles in separate cars - a practice popularised in modern times by former dictator Saddam Hussein.
Will the official denials be enough to put the story to rest? I'm guessing not.
block-time published-time 10.40am AEST
Climate change loomed large yesterday, despite the best efforts of the Australian government, which was accused of "blocking" the issue on the summit's agenda. Here's what else went down on the first day of the G20 Leaders' Summit in Brisbane:
Russian officials were forced to deny reports that president Vladimir Putin was leaving the summit earlier after receiving a frosty reception from world leaders over Russian aggression in Ukraine. The Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, gave Putin a particularly stinging welcome, telling him: "I guess I'll shake your hand but I have only one thing to say to you: You need to get out of Ukraine."
The Queensland government worked feverishly behind the scenes lobbying Unesco representatives to stop the Great Barrier Reef from being listed as "in danger" by the UN's cultural and heritage body.
Putin will be bracing for a "catastrophic" slump in oil prices as David Cameron said Europe would have no choice but to step up sanctions if the Russian president did not abide by previous agreements to respect Ukraine's independence.
The Australian treasurer, Joe Hockey, said governments risked losing their legitimacy in the eyes of the people if multinationals are allowed to continue avoid paying their fair share tax.
Less than a dozen protesters were charged despite sustained demonstrations throughout Saturday covering every issue imaginable. That's in contrast to Toronto's G20 meeting in 2010 which saw more than 1,100 people arrested.
U.S. president Barack Obamareasserted America's so-called pivot to the Asia-Pacific in an address at the University of Queensland, declaring that the majority of the American navy and air force would be based out of the region by 2020. "The United States is and always will be a Pacific power," Obama said.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.43am AEST
block-time published-time 10.22am AEST
Soaring temperatures and an increasingly isolated position on climate change have Australia feeling the heat in Brisbane. My colleague Lenore Taylor reports that British PM David Cameron has addressed Tony Abbott's position directly, telling Sky News:
Countries that have so far done the least have to think about what more they can do. I've had good and friendly discussions with prime minister Abbott about that.
He went on:
I hope [Australia will] do everything they can in the coming months to look at what more they can deliver, because when it comes to Paris if we want to get a global agreement everyone is going to have to bring something to the table.
Read the full story here
His remarks came after US president Barack Obama forced climate change onto the G20 agenda with a strong speech urging the world to rally behind a new global agreement in Paris next year, and pledging $3bn to a green climate fund that Abbott has previously said Australia won't contribute to.
Australia's treasurer, Joe Hockey, has tried to put the spotlight back onto the economy on ABC television this morning, telling Insiders host Barrie Cassidy: "This is an economic forum. This is about millions and millions of jobs. This is about getting millions of people out of poverty."
"We cannot afford to deal with climate change if governments are in recession or countries are facing huge economic challenges," he said.
BRISTANE, AUSTRALIA - NOVEMBER 15: U.S. President Barack Obama (R) and British Prime Minister David Cameron attend the opening session of the G20 Summit on November 15, 2014 in Brisbane, Australia. Photograph: Xinhua /Landov / Barcroft Media/Xinhua /Landov / Barcroft Media
block-time published-time 10.05am AEST
Good morning and welcome to our live coverage of today's ongoing G20 summit in Brisbane.
We'll recap Saturday's developments shortly. On the ground today we have a bumper team: Lenore Taylor, Josh Robertson, Daniel Hurst, Patrick Wintour, Christian Bennett and Ben Doherty.
What they'll be covering is actually a small mystery. The official press schedule lists a single event at 11am (Brisbane time) in which global policy experts will tell us "what to expect from the G20 summit".
And after that? A big fat "TBC", according to the schedule.
Today's G20 schedule
At the very least we can expect two round of talks, including one on energy, and a pledge to increase economic growth by at least 2%, before the summit's communique is signed and sealed this evening. We'll bring the events to you live all day, so stick with us.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.06am AEST
LOAD-DATE: November 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
299 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 16, 2014 Sunday 1:07 AM GMT
G20 climate change statement's evolution reveals backroom battle;
Australia is quietly fighting the US and EU to keep the G20 from making a strong statement on climate change action· G20 Brisbane - follow all the developments live
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 557 words
Initially Australia didn't want climate change in the G20 communique at all. Then it spent weeks fighting to keep the language vague.
Now, Guardian Australia can reveal the original text of the end of summit statement, the revised text and the inside story of the G20 countries' fight over its wording.
Australia's treasurer, Joe Hockey, told the ABC Insiders program on Sunday morning that Australia did agree to include a paragraph on climate change in the first draft of the G20 communique. What he didn't say is that Australian negotiators have resisted attempts to strengthen it ever since.
The paragraph in the first draft, revealed last week by Guardian Australia, said this: "We support strong and effective action to address climate change, consistent with sustainable economic growth and certainty for business and investment. We reaffirm our resolve to adopt a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the United Nations framework convention on climate change that is applicable to all parties at the 21st conference of the parties in Paris in 2015."
The draft available Saturday evening - after weeks of attempts to strengthen it by US and European negotiators - read like this:
"We support strong and effective action to address climate change, consistent with the United Nations framework convention on climate change and its agreed outcomes. Our actions will support sustainable development, economic growth and certainty for business and investment. We will work together to adopt successfully a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the United Nations framework convention on climate change that is applicable to all parties at the 21st conference of the parties [COP] in Paris in 2015. We encourage parties that are ready to communicate their intended nationally determined contributions well in advance of COP21 - by the first quarter of 2015 by those parties ready to do so. [We reaffirm our support for mobilising finance for adaptation and mitigation, including the green climate fund.]"
Hidden in all those words is a concession hard-won by US and the EU negotiators in weeks of talks - a call for countries to reveal their environmental targets (the "nationally determined contributions" in diplomat-speak) well ahead of the Paris meeting in 2015 and possibly by early next year.
Australia accepted that change very reluctantly. The country has said it will reveal a target before Paris, but not when, or how it will be determine them, or by what policy it could achieve deeper cuts.
The brackets around the last sentence show that even after the US president, Barack Obama, made a $3bn pledge to the green climate fund - designed to help poorer countries adapt to climate change and crucial to a successful outcome in Paris - support for it, as shown by the wording, was not agreed.
Late on Saturday night Australia was resisting a reference to the green climate fund in the communique, and the decision had been passed up to the office of the Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott.
It seemed likely Australia would eventually agree, although Abbott has previously said he would not contribute to the green climate fund, labelling it an international version of the "Bob Brown bank" - the Clean Energy Finance Corporation - which he wants to abolish.
LOAD-DATE: November 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
300 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 16, 2014 Sunday 12:14 AM GMT
G20: Tony Abbott 'whingeing' about domestic agenda on world stage;
Opposition leader Bill Shorten says Australian PM made 'weird and graceless' opening address on the carbon tax, asylum seekers and budget problems
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor and Daniel Hurst
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 878 words
Tony Abbott has highlighted his domestic political agenda during an opening address to world leaders in Brisbane, citing the abolition of carbon pricing, the hardline stance on asylum-seeker boat arrivals and "massively difficult" budget measures.
The Australian prime minister conceded his counterparts could raise any topic they wish in the G20's closed-door leaders retreat - despite his wish that it remain economics-focused - after intense pressure from Europe and the US for stronger action on climate change.
And Abbott injected some Australian familiarity by urging prime ministers and presidents to address each other by their first names.
The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, mocked Abbott for a "weird and graceless" speech, saying the prime minister had used his moment in front of the world's most important leaders to complain that Australians did not support a co-payment on visits to the doctor.
At the start of the leaders retreat in Brisbane, Abbott linked his domestic political agenda with the conference aim of spurring growth in G20 economies by 2%.
"The world is looking to all of us right now to try to demonstrate to an uncertain and at times anxious world there are people who know what they are doing, that there are people who have a plan, a plan for growth and for jobs," he told the leaders representing 85% of the world's gross domestic product.
Abbott called for a candid discussion, saying: "We may not always be able to agree but I hope we can at least be open with each other over this time."
After long resisting any focus on what he sees as non-economic issues, including climate change, he conceded other things were likely to be raised.
"Obviously I would like this discussion to focus on the politics of economic reform, that's what I would like the discussion to do ... In the end, though, this is your retreat, it is open to any of you to raise any subject that you wish," he said.
"The only rules, as far as I'm concerned, are if we can speak from our heart rather than from a script, that would be good. If we could be reasonably concise, five minutes please at the most, that would be good and if we could use first names, that would be good as well. Because whatever disagreements we might have, I think it helps if there can at least be personal warmth amongst us."
Abbott then spoke of his own record in abolishing the carbon tax, stopping "illegal" asylum-seeker boats, building roads and repairing the budget. His budgetary goal, he said, was proving "massively difficult" because "it doesn't matter what spending program you look at, it doesn't matter how wasteful that spending program might appear, there are always some people in the community who vote, who love that program very much".
He nominated deregulation of higher education fees and the introduction of a Medicare co-payment as especially difficult, but necessary reforms.
Shorten issued a statement denouncing Abbott's speech as "a disastrous missed opportunity for Australia".
"This was Tony Abbott's moment in front of the most important and influential leaders in the world and he's whingeing that Australians don't want his GP tax," the opposition leader said.
"This was his opportunity to show why Australia should be considered a world leader; he's had months to prepare for this moment. Instead he boasted of taking Australia backwards on climate change action, making it harder for Australians to go to university and pricing sick people out of getting the healthcare they need."
The Australian treasurer, Joe Hockey, speaking after a meeting of the finance ministers, said those in the room had a "collective determination to deliver more economic growth and as a result of that more jobs".
He said the resolution to increase economic growth by 2% by 2018 was an "unprecedented break from business-as-usual" which, if achieved, would equate to "$2tn in additional global economic activity and millions of new jobs".
"I want to emphasise that my finance minister colleagues and I are resolute in our determination to use all policy levers to generate growth and jobs," Hockey said after the fifth and final meeting of finance ministers under Australia's G20 presidency.
"Our individual growth strategies include over 1,000 measures that will lift infrastructure investment, increase trade and competition, cut red tape and lift labour market participation."
Hockey said Abbott would have more to say on Sunday about the growth target and plans to establish a global infrastructure hub in Sydney to drive private sector investment.
The treasurer said G20 countries had also "set out to restore integrity and resilience to our tax bases, and give our citizens the confidence that everyone is paying their fair share of tax".
"Our effort has continued right up to this summit, and I welcome the recent proposal to amend certain intellectual property regimes or 'patent boxes' to ensure that they are not inappropriately used for tax avoidance," Hockey said. "This proposal continues our work on harmful tax practices and I commend it to other G20 and OECD members for their consideration."
Civil society groups have reaffirmed calls for G20 leaders to take strong action against tax avoidance and to ensure inclusive growth so the benefits flowed to the poorest households.
LOAD-DATE: November 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
301 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 16, 2014 Sunday 12:13 AM GMT
G20: Barack Obama leaves his woes at home as he woos young Australia;
'Every time I come here I've got sit in conference rooms and talk to politicians instead of going to the beach'
BYLINE: Ben Doherty
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 737 words
Lame duck at home, lion away.
"We got beat," Barack Obama said of the mid-term elections last week in which voters punished the Democrats, a result widely viewed as a damning critique of the president's performance.
Overseas, however, he remains capable of directing the agenda, placing climate change firmly at the centre of this weekend's G20 negotiations.
The president served up a confident - and at times defiant - foreign policy address at the University of Queensland Saturday on the sidelines of the G20 leaders' summit.
Obama hit all the right notes for his youthful Australian audience - largely school and university students - asking if anyone in the audience had any XXXX - the beer uniquely adored in Queensland. And he claimed to have picked up some of the local dialect, "Strine", during childhood trips through Australia.
"It's good to be back in Australia, I love Australia, I really do. The only problem is every time I come here I've got sit in conference rooms and talk to politicians instead of going to the beach."
He said he was happy to be in "Brisvegas", but worried about the country's dangerous fauna, because "there are just a lot of things in Australia that can kill you".
The day after Australian prime minister Tony Abbott said Sydney was "nothing but bush" when the first fleet arrived in 1788, Obama conspicuously paid tribute to Aboriginal Australians. "I acknowledge the traditional owners of this land," he said.
The speech was preceded by a carnival-like atmosphere: hundreds queued happily outside in the heat, while others, without tickets, staked out with cameras the campus roundabout Obama's advance team reportedly wanted removed, for (ultimately unrealised) fears the Cadillac he travels in - the Beast - would fail to negotiate it.
Inside the hall, enormous US and Australian flags bookended either side of the stage, and a unconventional medley of country music and Stevie Wonder songs pealed from speakers.
In anticipation, the event had the feel of a college campus pep rally, a campaign event for a man for whom there are simply no more jobs to run for, and few causes for which he has the political capital left to stump.
Undaunted by domestic constraints, a confident Obama outlined the foreign policy challenges he sees as most critical in a modern "inter-connected world".
He highlighted North Korea's nuclear program, China's territorial and maritime disputes, and Russia's belligerency in the Ukraine as pressing problems for the world to solve, as well as "the poverty and inequality that are a recipe for insecurity".
But Obama staked his speech on climate change.
The subject drew the first of half-a-dozen interruptions for applause, as the president told his audience there was no greater challenge for Australia, for the Asia-Pacific, or for the world.
Obama urged climate change sceptics to "look squarely at the science" and spruiked the emissions deal he inked with Chinese president Xi Jingping in Beijing on Thursday. "If China and America can agree on this, the world can agree on this. We can get this done. And it is necessary," he said.
Host nation Australia has fiercely resisted climate change being placed on the G20 agenda, but is finding itself further and further isolated on the issue. Obama appeared unworried about discomforting his host Abbott.
Reaching a global binding climate agreement in Paris next year may be the final major act of Obama's presidency.
Presidents so deep into their second terms have, always, one eye on the horizon.
Australia had a responsibility to act, Obama urged, or it would suffer the effects of climate change as much as anywhere.
"Here in Australia it means longer droughts, more wildfires, it means the incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened. Worldwide, this past summer was the hottest on record. No nation is immune. Every nation has a responsibility to do its part."
As Obama left the hall, shaking hands with schoolchildren and at least one former governor general, the country music that preceded his arrival blared out once more.
The song was Only in America, by Brooks and Dunn, a ballad about a boy dreaming of growing up to be president.
It includes the line "staring at the faces in the rear-view mirror, looking at the promise of the promised land".
Obama has more of his presidency in the rear-view mirror than he does in front, but he appears intent on doing what he can, with what he has left.
LOAD-DATE: November 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
302 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 16, 2014 Sunday 12:11 AM GMT
G20: Barack Obama uses visit to reassert US influence in Asia Pacific;
US president says China must 'adhere to the same rules as other nations, whether in trade or on the seas'G20 Brisbane: follow our live coverage
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 1075 words
Barack Obama has sharply reasserted the United States' military, economic and political influence in the Asia Pacific and the importance of his so-called "pivot" to the region.
The president said the US would work "day in, day out, steadily and deliberately" to deepen its military, economic and diplomatic engagement - saying that by the end of the decade a majority of the US navy and air force would be based out of the Pacific because "the United States is and always will be a Pacific power".
The president's address had a blunt message for China, raising the question of what role China wanted to play in the region and insisting China - currently engaged in territorial disputes in the South China Sea - must "adhere to the same rules as other nations, whether in trade or on the seas".
"America will continue to stand up for our interests and principles including our unwavering support for the fundamental human rights of all people. We do not benefit from a relationship with China or any other country in which we put our values and our ideals aside," he said.
And it had a message for Australia, the host of the G20 meeting the president is attending but a country that has been reluctant to even discuss climate change at the summit. He said every nation had a "responsibility to do its part" in reducing greenhouse emissions and announced a $3bn US pledge to the green climate fund.
"Here in the Asia Pacific nobody has more at stake when it comes to thinking about and then acting on climate change.
"Here a climate that increases in temperature will mean more extreme and frequent storms, more flooding, rising seas that submerge Pacific islands. Here in Australia it means longer droughts, more wildfires. The incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened...
"No nation is immune and every nation has a responsibility to do its part. And you will recall at the beginning I said the US and Australia have a lot in common. Well one of the things we have in common is we produce a lot of carbon ... which means we've got to step up," he said.
Obama said America would have a bigger defence presence in south-east Asia, including Singapore, finalise new defence guidelines with Japan, deepen missile defence collaboration with the Republic of Korea, rotate more marines through bases in northern Australia and conduct more counterterrorism training with the Philippines.
The US had been accused of becoming diverted from the strategic shift - or "rebalancing" - towards to Asia, first outlined in a speech to the Australian parliament in November 2011, with events in the Middle East repeatedly drawing foreign policy focus back towards that region.
But the president used the speech during his visit to Brisbane to reject categorically this idea.
"There have been times where people have been sceptical about this rebalancing. They're wondering whether America has staying power to sustain it," he said before vowing that "day in, day out, steadily, deliberately, we will continue to deepen our engagement using every element of our power - diplomacy, military, economic development and the power of our values."
He listed security and economic pressures in the region and insisted that international law, peaceful dispute resolution, democracy, open markets and human rights were the only acceptable way to solve them.
"We see dangers that could undermine ... progress. And we can't look at those problems through rose tinted glasses. North Korea's nuclear and missile programs. Disputes over territory - remote islands and rocky shoals - threaten to spiral into confrontation. The failure to uphold universal human rights denies justice to citizens and denies countries their full potential.
"The question we face is which of these futures will define the Asia Pacific in the century to come. Will we move towards further integration, more justice, more peace, or do we move towards disorder, disintegration? These are our choices, Conflict or cooperation? Oppression or liberty? Here in Australia three years ago, in your parliament, I made it clear where the United States stands," the president said in the speech at the University of Queensland.
"As a Pacific power, the United States has invested our blood and treasure to advance this vision. We don't just talk about it. We invest in this vision. Generations of Americans have served and died here so that the people of the Asia Pacific might live free. So no one should ever question our resolve or our commitments to our allies."
The original pivot raised concerns in China, especially as it contained a new defence agreement with Australia, including the original announcement of the rotation of marines through a military base in Darwin.
Immediately before this visit to Australia, Obama had a successful trip to Beijing, announcing a significant agreement on cutting greenhouse emissions with Chinese president Xi Jinping on the sidelines of an Apec meeting in Beijing.
Speaking as they announced that deal, Obama said his discussions with the Chinese president had allowed him to to dismiss the idea that "our pivot to Asia is about containing China".
But fundamental competitive tensions between the superpowers remain.
Xi used Apec to assert his own vision or "Asia Pacific dream", promising aid and infrastructure spending in the region, and to push for a new Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific - a distraction from the US-backed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade talks, which exclude China.
Obama used his Brisbane speech to vow that the US would continue leading the efforts to realise the TPP, which he said would be a "historic achievement".
China has also won the backing of 21 countries for its new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. After pressure from the US and a personal phone call from Obama to the prime minister, Tony Abbott, Australia rejected a request from China that it sign on as a founding member of the bank, citing concerns about governance and transparency - although the issue split the cabinet.
The president immediately won over the Australian crowd, starting his speech with the confession that the only problem with his visits to Australia was that he had to go to conferences instead of the beach and revealing that he had tweeted about some research conducted at the university he was attending to his 31 million Twitter followers - a following he said "wasn't bad, even though it was slightly fewer than Lady Gaga's".
LOAD-DATE: November 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
303 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 16, 2014 Sunday 12:10 AM GMT
Joe Hockey says climate change talk should not overshadow G20's real work;
Treasurer minimises significance of US-China deal on emissions, and says finance ministers were too busy working to hear Barack Obama's speech· G20 Brisbane - follow all day two's developments live
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor and Daniel Hurst
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 881 words
Joe Hockey says climate change is no impediment to economic growth, and has downplayed the significance of pledges by the United States and China to cut emissions.
The treasurer insisted the G20 remained focused on the "hard work" of boosting growth and establishing an infrastructure hub.
After the speech by US president Barack Obama catapulting climate change onto the G20 agenda and a plea from the UK prime minister David Cameron for Australia to make new climate commitments, the treasurer was asked on ABC TV whether he accepted climate change was potentially one of the biggest impediments to growth.
"No, I don't. Absolutely not," he told the Insiders program.
He went on to downplay the post-2020 emission reduction commitments unveiled by Obama and Chinese president Xi Jinping on the eve of the G20 summit in Brisbane.
"Look at China. China is going to continue to increase emissions until 2030. It is going to continue increasing emissions to 2030," he said.
Hockey questioned Obama's ability to deliver on his new pledge, saying: "Barack Obama has to get any initiative on climate change through a hostile US Congress ... That's up to the US but so far he hasn't had great success. You never know. Hopefully he can do what he wants to do as president but we all face those challenges - but we have to do what we believe to be right for the nation; he is doing what he believes to be right of the United States."
The US agreed to cut emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025, and China pledged to ensure its greenhouse gas output peaked by 2030. China also vowed to draw 20% of its energy needs from zero-emission sources by 2030.
Obama is relying on executive powers to implement the deal, but the Republican-dominated Congress could seek to frustrate his agenda by attaching "riders" to budget bills. Republicans have signalled their intention to target Environmental Protection Authority regulations on power station emissions.
Australia is committed to cutting its emissions by 5% of 2000 levels by 2020, but is yet to reveal its post-2020 pledge.
The foreign affairs minister, Julie Bishop, said Australia would "ensure that any commitment we make balances our national economic interests with the interests of our environment".
Speaking to Channel 10's Bolt Report on Sunday, Bishop said Obama "would be thinking about his legacy" and she expected a number of nations to give similar statements about their proposed commitment before next year's Paris climate summit.
But she sounded a warning over the strength of commitments.
"The big issue, of course, will be whether countries take the step from making statements about what they are going to do to actually committing to legally binding targets and commitments and that is what happened in the Copenhagen climate change conference [in 2009]. It was all very well to talk about it, but people didn't commit to legally binding targets that would be backed by legally enforcing penalties."
Obama said in his speech that no region had more to lose from rising temperatures than the Asia Pacific, and Australia in particular, citing threats to the Great Barrier Reef and the prospect of more bushfires and longer droughts.
"No nation is immune and every nation has a responsibility to do its part," Obama said.
Hockey said he did not hear Obama's speech. "I was in meetings with finance ministers. We're the ones doing the hard work on the treadmill ... He is entitled to give a speech."
Cameron joined calls for Tony Abbott to do more to tackle climate change, saying "countries that have so far done the least have to think about what more they can do".
Cameron told Britain's Sky News that every nation needed to "put more on the table" if the world was to reach a successful agreement in Paris next year on reducing greenhouse emissions after 2020.
"Countries that have so far done the least have to think about what more they can do. I've had good and friendly discussions with prime minister Abbott about that," he said, adding that even those unsure of climate science should regard action as a form of "insurance".
"I hope [Australia will] do everything they can in the coming months to look at what more they can deliver, because when it comes to Paris if we want to get a global agreement everyone is going to have to bring something to the table."
Abbott had long argued climate discussions would distract from the G20's economic policy focus and should be left to other UN-led meetings, but the world leaders gathering in Brisbane have made sure it is high on the agenda.
Hockey confirmed Australia had included climate change in the first draft of the G20 communique. Since then, negotiators have been struggling against Australian objections to strengthen the language, and these discussions continued as late as Saturday night.
China's vice minister of finance, Zhu Guangyao, told reporters at the G20 on Saturday that China would work hard to ensure its emissions peaked before 2030.
He said that if the Chinese economy developed too fast for the environment to sustain "we must make adjustments to our policies in a timely way so we can minimise the impact on our environment".
Zhu did not directly answer whether China's demand for Australian coal would increase, stay stable or decrease as a result of the commitment.
LOAD-DATE: November 16, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
304 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 16, 2014 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
Finishing Asia Tour, Obama Promotes More Ambitious Foreign Policy
BYLINE: By MARK LANDLER
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; LISTENING POST; Pg. 10
LENGTH: 990 words
BRISBANE, Australia -- When President Obama ended his last trip to Asia in the Philippines in April, he delivered a defense of his foreign policy as a slow, steady pursuit of American interests -- casting himself as a batter who hits singles and doubles, but avoids reckless errors.
As he finishes another tour of the region in Australia this weekend, Mr. Obama seems to have found a formula for a more ambitious approach overseas, built around two issues that only recently climbed to the top of his agenda: trade and climate change.
The scorecard for this trip looks drastically different from the last one: a landmark climate-change agreement with China, a trade deal with the Chinese on technology products, signs of progress on a regional trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and a $3 billion pledge to a climate-change fund for developing countries.
Some of the difference is merely a question of timing. Negotiations with the Chinese on the climate and trade agreements had been underway for months. The prospects for a Trans-Pacific Partnership deal improved in recent months, and may actually be helped further in the United States by the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.
These issues do not come without traps of their own. Republicans immediately condemned Mr. Obama's climate agreement with China. The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said it would require China to do nothing for 16 years while ''creating havoc in my state and other states across the country.''
But administration officials said the accomplishments of the trip exemplified what Mr. Obama hopes will be an ''affirmative agenda'' in foreign policy -- one that will offset the relentless stream of crises he has confronted, including the Islamic State militant group, the Ebola outbreak and Ukraine.
''Even as we have to manage crises, we want to make sure we're focusing on an affirmative agenda,'' said Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser. ''I think that's the common thread on this trip.''
Mr. Obama clearly relished having momentum as he arrived in Brisbane for a meeting of the Group of 20, the organization of 19 industrial and emerging-market countries plus the European Union. Speaking at the University of Queensland on Saturday, he drew noisy applause when he talked about how the climate deal with China could galvanize efforts to negotiate a new global climate treaty in 2015.
''You've got to be able to overcome old divides, look squarely at the science and reach a strong global climate agreement next year,'' Mr. Obama said. ''If China and the United States can agree on this, then the world can agree on this. We can get this done.''
Mr. Obama's words carried an extra edge in Australia, where Prime Minister Tony Abbott is a blunt skeptic about the science behind climate change. He boasted to the leaders gathered for the meeting that his government had repealed a tax on carbon emissions -- a key tool to curb the greenhouse gases that heat up the atmosphere.
Mr. Abbott tried to keep climate change off the agenda at the Group of 20 meeting, preferring to focus on jobs and economic growth. But Mr. Obama's $3 billion pledge to the Green Climate Fund, announced in his speech here, made that difficult.
The timing was clearly intended to prod other would-be donors, like Japan, which was expected to announce a contribution of up to $1.5 billion toward the fund's total goal of $10 billion.
Mr. Obama seemed well aware of what he was doing. Australia and the United States, he said, both have bad track records on carbon emissions because they share a frontier tradition and an abundance of fossil fuels -- ''which means,'' he said, ''we've got to step up.''
That line drew a burst of applause from the audience. Australian officials listened respectfully but left little doubt where they stood afterward.
''Australia is a resources-exporting economy: coal, gas, uranium,'' said Tim Nicholls, the treasurer and minister of trade of the State of Queensland. ''We think a sensible debate is absolutely necessary, but we also think there is a future for coal, as there is for gas.''
Mr. Obama came to the meeting with another advantage: The American economy is growing more rapidly than most others, especially Japan's and Europe's. He said the United States would push for countries to pursue more expansionary economic policies to stimulate demand and create jobs.
''Over the last few years,'' he said, ''the United States has put more people back to work than all other advanced economies combined. But America can't be expected to just carry the world economy on our back.''
Some economists predicted that Mr. Obama's words would carry weight in a way that they did not in previous years because the United States is so obviously outperforming its peers.
''The rest of the world is looking at the United States with a degree of envy,'' said Kenneth Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard. ''The way that the U.S. has recovered, the way it relatively quickly handled its banking crisis, the shale revolution and so on.''
Still, it is not clear how long the afterglow from Mr. Obama's trip will last. He must deal with Republicans who have pledged to fight him on issues from an immigration overhaul to the Keystone XL pipeline. Many Democrats will not cheer his success if he manages to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Mr. Obama will also have to deal again with the crises in Syria and Iraq, where the Pentagon is sending more American troops, and in Ukraine, where there are new reports of Russian troops fighting inside the country.
Even in Brisbane, where he spoke hopefully of the reinvigorated American role in Asia, Mr. Obama referred to the other headaches he faced, singling out the international response to the ''appalling'' downing of a Malaysian jetliner in Ukraine, which killed 38 Australian citizens and residents.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/world/asia/finishing-asia-tour-obama-promotes-more-ambitious-foreign-policy.html
LOAD-DATE: February 3, 2015
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
305 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 15, 2014 Saturday 11:42 PM GMT
G20: David Cameron urges Tony Abbott to do more on climate change;
Britain's PM says countries that have 'done the least' need to lift their game if agreement is to be reached on post-2020 emissions· G20 Brisbane - follow all the developments live
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 587 words
British prime minister David Cameron has joined calls for Tony Abbott to do more to tackle climate change, saying "countries that have so far done the least have to think about what more they can do".
Cameron told Britain's Sky News that every nation needed to "put more on the table" if the world was to reach a successful agreement in Paris next year on reducing greenhouse emissions after 2020.
"Countries that have so far done the least have to think about what more they can do. I've had good and friendly discussions with prime minister Abbott about that," he said, adding that even those unsure of climate science should regard action as a form of "insurance".
"I hope [Australia will] do everything they can in the coming months to look at what more they can deliver, because when it comes to Paris if we want to get a global agreement everyone is going to have to bring something to the table."
On Saturday US president Barack Obama dramatically forced climate on the G20 agenda - against the wishes of the Australian hosts - with a hard-hitting speech urging the world to rally behind a new global agreement, pledging $3bn to the green climate fund and pointing out that countries such as Australia had the most to lose from global warming.
The surprise announcement from Obama and Chinese president Xi Jinping on the eve of the summit of post-2020 greenhouse reduction targets also increased pressure on Australia to unveil its own promise for deeper longer term emission cuts.
Abbott downplayed the significance of that agreement at the time, saying it was welcome because US and China were the two biggest emitters in the world, whereas Australia's emissions accounted for only "about 1%". He insisted Australia was "not focusing on the far distant future" but "actually cutting our emissions ... as a result of the Direct Action policy.
And he still insisted that the G20 was not an appropriate gathering to discuss climate because there were plenty of other United Nations meetings to do that.
Cameron said Abbott had told him Australia was meeting its pre-2020 target of a 5% emissions cut, but he said it made sense for governments to insure against climate change even if they weren't sure it was happening.
"I always say, think about it like insurance, even if you don't believe in the nature of this threat, isn't it better to insure against it? You might think there's only a 10% chance of your house burning down, but even if it's that percentage chance wouldn't you do something to try and make sure you can save your world, your environment for your children and your grandchildren?"
Abbott has argued climate discussions would distract from the G20's economic policy focus and should be left to other UN-led meetings.
In the backrooms of the G20 on Saturday, Australian negotiators were continuing to resist language in the official communique encouraging countries to make pledges to the Green Climate Fund - to which Obama had just pledged $3bn - prompting environmental and aid groups to warn the host nation was appearing like a "blocker".
Australian ministers have said they will unveil a post-2020 climate pledge well ahead of the Paris meeting, but it is not clear how it will be calculated, and deeper cuts would be extremely expensive under the Direct Action policy in its current form.
On Saturday, the United Nations secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, also insisted the G20 had to discuss climate change because it was "the defining issue of our times".
with agencies
LOAD-DATE: November 15, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
306 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 15, 2014 Saturday 5:03 PM GMT
G20: Barack Obama leaves his woes at home as he woos young Australia;
'Every time I come here I've got sit in conference rooms and talk to politicians instead of going to the beach'· G20 Brisbane: follow our live coverage
BYLINE: Ben Doherty
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 737 words
Lame duck at home, lion away.
"We got beat," Barack Obama said of the mid-term elections last week in which voters punished the Democrats, a result widely viewed as a damning critique of the president's performance.
Overseas, however, he remains capable of directing the agenda, placing climate change firmly at the centre of this weekend's G20 negotiations.
The president served up a confident - and at times defiant - foreign policy address at the University of Queensland Saturday on the sidelines of the G20 leaders' summit.
Obama hit all the right notes for his youthful Australian audience - largely school and university students - asking if anyone in the audience had any XXXX - the beer uniquely adored in Queensland. And he claimed to have picked up some of the local dialect, "Strine", during childhood trips through Australia.
"It's good to be back in Australia, I love Australia, I really do. The only problem is every time I come here I've got sit in conference rooms and talk to politicians instead of going to the beach."
He said he was happy to be in "Brisvegas", but worried about the country's dangerous fauna, because "there are just a lot of things in Australia that can kill you".
The day after Australian prime minister Tony Abbott said Sydney was "nothing but bush" when the first fleet arrived in 1788, Obama conspicuously paid tribute to Aboriginal Australians. "I acknowledge the traditional owners of this land," he said.
The speech was preceded by a carnival-like atmosphere: hundreds queued happily outside in the heat, while others, without tickets, staked out with cameras the campus roundabout Obama's advance team reportedly wanted removed, for (ultimately unrealised) fears the Cadillac he travels in - the Beast - would fail to negotiate it.
Inside the hall, enormous US and Australian flags bookended either side of the stage, and a unconventional medley of country music and Stevie Wonder songs pealed from speakers.
In anticipation, the event had the feel of a college campus pep rally, a campaign event for a man for whom there are simply no more jobs to run for, and few causes for which he has the political capital left to stump.
Undaunted by domestic constraints, a confident Obama outlined the foreign policy challenges he sees as most critical in a modern "inter-connected world".
He highlighted North Korea's nuclear program, China's territorial and maritime disputes, and Russia's belligerency in the Ukraine as pressing problems for the world to solve, as well as "the poverty and inequality that are a recipe for insecurity".
But Obama staked his speech on climate change.
The subject drew the first of half-a-dozen interruptions for applause, as the president told his audience there was no greater challenge for Australia, for the Asia-Pacific, or for the world.
Obama urged climate change sceptics to "look squarely at the science" and spruiked the emissions deal he inked with Chinese president Xi Jingping in Beijing on Thursday. "If China and America can agree on this, the world can agree on this. We can get this done. And it is necessary," he said.
Host nation Australia has fiercely resisted climate change being placed on the G20 agenda, but is finding itself further and further isolated on the issue. Obama appeared unworried about discomforting his host Abbott.
Reaching a global binding climate agreement in Paris next year may be the final major act of Obama's presidency.
Presidents so deep into their second terms have, always, one eye on the horizon.
Australia had a responsibility to act, Obama urged, or it would suffer the effects of climate change as much as anywhere.
"Here in Australia it means longer droughts, more wildfires, it means the incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened. Worldwide, this past summer was the hottest on record. No nation is immune. Every nation has a responsibility to do its part."
As Obama left the hall, shaking hands with schoolchildren and at least one former governor general, the country music that preceded his arrival blared out once more.
The song was Only in America, by Brooks and Dunn, a ballad about a boy dreaming of growing up to be president.
It includes the line "staring at the faces in the rear-view mirror, looking at the promise of the promised land".
Obama has more of his presidency in the rear-view mirror than he does in front, but he appears intent on doing what he can, with what he has left.
LOAD-DATE: November 15, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
307 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 15, 2014 Saturday 8:55 AM GMT
G20: Obama puts climate change in spotlight as Australian agenda sidelined;
US president pulls focus away from economic growth with announcement of emissions deal with China and call to secure a strong global climate agreement next year
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 741 words
Climate change was forced to the top of the G20 agenda on Saturday, despite the objections of the host nation Australia, after Barack Obama urged the world to rally behind a new global agreement and the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, called it "the defining issue of our times".
The Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, had argued climate discussions would distract from the G20's economic policy focus and should be left to other UN-led meetings.
But in a one-two manoeuvre that caught Australia off guard, Obama upstaged Abbott and made certain it was the talk of the conference anyway. First came the joint US/China post-2020 greenhouse emission reduction targets announced in Beijing on the eve of the summit and then the $3bn Green Climate Fund pledge made in a keynote speech as Abbott was greeting other world leaders across town.
"No nation is immune and every nation has a responsibility to do its part," Obama said. "You will recall at the beginning I said the US and Australia has a lot in common. Well one of the things we have in common is we produce a lot of carbon ... which means we've got to step up."
He said the targets he announced with the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, sent "a powerful message to the world that all countries, whether you are a developed country, a developing country or somewhere in between, you've got to be able to overcome old divides, look squarely at the science and reach a strong global climate agreement next year".
"And if China and the US can agree on this then the world can agree on this, we can get this done and it is necessary for us to get it done."
But in the backrooms of the G20, Australia was continuing to resist language in the official communique encouraging countries to make pledges to the Green Climate Fund, prompting environmental and aid groups to warn the host nation was appearing like a "blocker".
Abbott has been highly critical of the fund. When asked about it before last year's UN climate meeting in Warsaw, he said: "We're not going to be making any contributions to that." It was reported that at one of its first cabinet meetings the Abbott government decided it would make no contributions to it, and that it was described as "socialism masquerading as environmentalism".
And Australia and Canada pointedly dissented from support for the fund in a communique from last November's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.
Abbott was also attacked for focusing on his own domestic agenda as he welcomed the world leaders to a G20 "retreat" on Saturday morning.
Instead of focusing on world crises such as stagnating growth, the Ebola epidemic or conflicts, Abbott cited his difficulties in legislating for a new fee for when Australians go to the doctor and a plan to deregulate the higher education sector.
Abbott "thanked God" he had stopped the "illegal boats" - carrying asylum seekers - and had successfully repealed the carbon tax, but complained it was proving "massively difficult" to pass his budget cuts. The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, described the address as "weird and graceless".
But in the formal negotiating sessions, world leaders were talking about the things Australia wanted on the agenda: a Brisbane action plan in which G20 nations will promise to implement new policies that have been assessed to have the potential to add 2% to their collective economic growth, and an infrastructure hub to be located in Sydney promote investment.
Before the meeting only Australia had committed money to this idea, but officials said the UK, New Zealand, Korea, Singapore and Saudi Arabia had now promised an unspecified amount.
Obama also used his address to reassert American military, economic and political influence in the Asia Pacific and the importance of his so-called "pivot" to the region.
The president said the US would work "day in, day out, steadily and deliberately" to deepen its military, economic and diplomatic engagement - saying that by the end of the decade most of the US navy and air force would be based in the Pacific because "the United States is and always will be a Pacific power".
Anticipated protests outside the meeting were largely peaceful and resulted in only a handful of arrests. Police outnumbered protesters.
The world leaders were treated to an Australian barbecue lunch, cocktail reception and concert by local musicians on Saturday night. Their spouses visited a local koala sanctuary on Saturday afternoon.
LOAD-DATE: November 15, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
308 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 15, 2014 Saturday 7:41 AM GMT
Australia a 'blocker' in G20 fight against climate change, say charities;
Reluctance to commit to contributing to Green Climate Fund is criticised by Oxfam and World Vision as US leads the way
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 457 words
Australia has been labelled a "blocker" for being the main country resisting a G20 commitment to the global Green Climate Fund even as Barack Obama was using the same meeting to pledge $3bn to it.
As revealed by Guardian Australia on Saturday, Australia was holding out against pressure from Europe and the US for G20 leaders to back pledges to the fund, which helps poor countries adapt to climate change and is seen as critical to a successful international deal at a United Nations meeting in Paris next year.
A reference to "encouraging" countries to contribute to the fund remains in brackets in the draft final communique - meaning it has not yet been agreed - with the principal objections coming from Australia. It is understood the Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, and his advisers will have to decide whether to allow the language to proceed in the consensus-driven G20 process.
Oxfam's international executive director, Winnie Byanyima, said Australia should "stop being a blocker" and risked "finding itself isolated in the world".
World Vision's chief executive, Tim Costello, said: "It would be a terrible embarrassment if Australia, the president of the G20, turned out to be the spoiler on this."
As revealed by the Guardian on Friday, Obama used a speech in Brisbane to pledge $3bn to the Green Climate Fund. The president's strong climate speech, in which he insisted nowhere had more to lose from rising temperatures than the Asia Pacific region and Australia in particular, forced the climate issue on the G20 agenda despite the host nation's reluctance.
Abbott has previously insisted Australia would not make any contributions to the green climate fund, although it is understood the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which leads Australia's negotiating position in international climate talks, has been considering whether Canberra should make a pledge. Sources said no final decision had been made.
Asked about the fund before last year's UN climate meeting in Warsaw, the prime minister said: "We're not going to be making any contributions to that." It was reported that at one of its first cabinet meetings the Abbott government decided it would make no contributions to the fund, which was described as "socialism masquerading as environmentalism".
More than $2.8bn has been pledged to the fund so far - including $1bn by France and almost $1bn by Germany. More pledges are expected at a special conference in Berlin on 20 November. The UK has said it will make a "strong" contribution at that meeting.
Australia also pointedly dissented from support for the fund in a communique from last November's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting - a stance backed by Canada.
LOAD-DATE: November 15, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
309 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 15, 2014 Saturday 7:01 AM GMT
G20: Barack Obama leaves his woes at home as he woos young Australia;
'Every time I come here I've got sit in conference rooms and talk to politicians instead of going to the beach'· G20 Brisbane: follow our live coverage
BYLINE: Ben Doherty
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 737 words
Lame duck at home, lion away.
"We got beat," Barack Obama said of the mid-term elections last week in which voters punished the Democrats, a result widely viewed as a damning critique of the president's performance.
Overseas, however, he remains capable of directing the agenda, placing climate change firmly at the centre of this weekend's G20 negotiations.
The president served up a confident - and at times defiant - foreign policy address at the University of Queensland Saturday on the sidelines of the G20 leaders' summit.
Obama hit all the right notes for his youthful Australian audience - largely school and university students - asking if anyone in the audience had any XXXX - the beer uniquely adored in Queensland. And he claimed to have picked up some of the local dialect, "Strine", during childhood trips through Australia.
"It's good to be back in Australia, I love Australia, I really do. The only problem is every time I come here I've got sit in conference rooms and talk to politicians instead of going to the beach."
He said he was happy to be in "Brisvegas", but worried about the country's dangerous fauna, because "there are just a lot of things in Australia that can kill you".
The day after Australian prime minister Tony Abbott said Sydney was "nothing but bush" when the first fleet arrived in 1788, Obama conspicuously paid tribute to Aboriginal Australians. "I acknowledge the traditional owners of this land," he said.
The speech was preceded by a carnival-like atmosphere: hundreds queued happily outside in the heat, while others, without tickets, staked out with cameras the campus roundabout Obama's advance team reportedly wanted removed, for (ultimately unrealised) fears the Cadillac he travels in - the Beast - would fail to negotiate it.
Inside the hall, enormous US and Australian flags bookended either side of the stage, and a unconventional medley of country music and Stevie Wonder songs pealed from speakers.
In anticipation, the event had the feel of a college campus pep rally, a campaign event for a man for whom there are simply no more jobs to run for, and few causes for which he has the political capital left to stump.
Undaunted by domestic constraints, a confident Obama outlined the foreign policy challenges he sees as most critical in a modern "inter-connected world".
He highlighted North Korea's nuclear program, China's territorial and maritime disputes, and Russia's belligerency in the Ukraine as pressing problems for the world to solve, as well as "the poverty and inequality that are a recipe for insecurity".
But Obama staked his speech on climate change.
The subject drew the first of half-a-dozen interruptions for applause, as the president told his audience there was no greater challenge for Australia, for the Asia-Pacific, or for the world.
Obama urged climate change sceptics to "look squarely at the science" and spruiked the emissions deal he inked with Chinese president Xi Jingping in Beijing on Thursday. "If China and America can agree on this, the world can agree on this. We can get this done. And it is necessary," he said.
Host nation Australia has fiercely resisted climate change being placed on the G20 agenda, but is finding itself further and further isolated on the issue. Obama appeared unworried about discomforting his host Abbott.
Reaching a global binding climate agreement in Paris next year may be the final major act of Obama's presidency.
Presidents so deep into their second terms have, always, one eye on the horizon.
Australia had a responsibility to act, Obama urged, or it would suffer the effects of climate change as much as anywhere.
"Here in Australia it means longer droughts, more wildfires, it means the incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened. Worldwide, this past summer was the hottest on record. No nation is immune. Every nation has a responsibility to do its part."
As Obama left the hall, shaking hands with schoolchildren and at least one former governor general, the country music that preceded his arrival blared out once more.
The song was Only in America, by Brooks and Dunn, a ballad about a boy dreaming of growing up to be president.
It includes the line "staring at the faces in the rear-view mirror, looking at the promise of the promised land".
Obama has more of his presidency in the rear-view mirror than he does in front, but he appears intent on doing what he can, with what he has left.
LOAD-DATE: November 15, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
310 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 15, 2014 Saturday 6:38 AM GMT
Green Climate Fund: five key facts;
Developing countries see fund as help for countries that did the least to cause climate change and are likely to suffer mostG20 Brisbane: follow our live coverage
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 331 words
1. So what is the fund?
The fund was designed to be the main source of financing to help developing countries cut their own greenhouse gas emissions, or plan for future climate change.
In practical terms, that could mean investments in solar farms, or construction of sea walls against rising seas, or crop research.
In addition to the practicalities, the fund has huge symbolic value.
Developing countries see the fund as an acknowledgement that the countries that did the least to cause climate change are likely to suffer the worst consequences.
That's reflected in the structure. Unlike other international financial institutions, the board of the GCF is evenly split between representatives of rich and poor countries.
2. How much money is in it?
With Obama's pledge, the fund now contains about $6bn. That's still far short of the $10bn to $15bn target its director hoped to raise by the end of this month.
But the strong commitment from the US - and a pledging conference in Berlin next week - are expected to see some more pledges roll in.
3. Will $10bn be enough?
Not nearly. That's just the starter capital. Industrialised countries pledged to scale up climate financing to $100bn a year by 2020 Most of those funds are expected to come from the private sector - not governments.
4. Do only rich countries have to pay in?
No. Unlike other aspects of the United Nations climate negotiations, it was envisaged that developing and industrialised countries alike would pay into the fund. South Korea, Indonesia and Mexico have already contributed. Peru and Costa Rica are also expected to pledge.
5. Where will the money go?
That's not clear yet. The fund, though first proposed in 2010, only got fully staffed last month. There has been wrangling over control of projects, and whether the fund or national governments will decide how to spend the money. However, there is agreement that projects are generally supposed to be evenly divided between cutting emissions and reducing climate risks.
LOAD-DATE: November 15, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
311 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 15, 2014 Saturday 5:55 AM GMT
Barack Obama tells G20 a global climate change deal is possible and vital;
US president says every nation has a responsibility to do its part and 'overcome old divides, look squarely at the science and reach a strong global climate agreement next year'· G20 Brisbane: follow our live coverage
BYLINE: Daniel Hurst and Lenore Taylor in Brisbane
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 822 words
Barack Obama has stared down both Republican hostility at home and the reluctance of his Australian G20 hosts to insist that the world can clinch a new climate change deal next year.
The president used a speech on the sidelines of the G20 in Brisbane, Australia, to confirm what was revealed by the Guardian on Friday : that the US would be contributing $3bn to the Green Climate Fund that aims to help developing nations cope with the effects of global warming.
And he insisted nowhere had more to lose from rising temperatures than the Asia Pacific region and Australia in particular.
"No nation is immune and every nation has a responsibility to do its part," Obama said. "You will recall at the beginning I said the US and Australia has a lot in common. Well one of the things we have in common is we produce a lot of carbon ... which means we've got to step up."
In the backrooms of the G20 meeting, Australia was continuing to resist language in the official communique encouraging countries to make pledges to the Green Climate Fund, but to a rousing reception at a local university, Obama announced the $3bn US commitment.
Obama said the new funding would help vulnerable communities with early-warning systems, stronger defences against storm surges, and climate-resilient infrastructure, while supporting farmers to plant more durable crops.
He hailed the deal he struck in Beijing on Wednesday, saying China's pledge to ensure its carbon emissions peaked by 2030 was historic.
"The reason that's so important is because if China as it develops adapts the same per capita carbon emissions as advanced economies like the US or Australia, this planet doesn't stand a chance because they've got a lot more people," Obama said.
"So them setting up a target sends a powerful message to the world that all countries, whether you are a developed country, a developing country or somewhere in between, you've got to be able to overcome old divides, look squarely at the science and reach a strong global climate agreement next year.
"And if China and the US can agree on this then the world can agree on this, we can get this done and it is necessary for us to get it done."
Obama faces domestic political challenges implementing greater curbs on greenhouse gas emissions in the US after the Republicans won control of both houses of Congress in mid-term elections last week.
Mitch McConnell, who will take over as the majority leader of the Senate, has called the China deal part of Obama's "ideological war on coal" and signalled that Republicans would seek to ease the burden of power station emission regulations.
The Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, told G20 counterparts earlier on Saturday they could raise any issue they liked during the leaders' retreat.
Abbott has previously resisted calls to make climate change a substantive agenda item at the G20, arguing the summit should focus on economic issues including increasing global growth.
Abbott himself referred to his government's domestic policies, including the abolition in July of Australia's carbon pricing scheme, when he spoke at the leaders' retreat.
Obama struck a markedly different tone in his speech to students and invited guests at the University of Queensland.
"I know that there has been a healthy debate in this country about it," the president said. "Here in the Asia Pacific nobody has more at stake when it comes to thinking about, and then acting on, climate change.
"Here a climate that increases in temperature will mean more extreme and frequent storms, more flooding, rising seas that submerge Pacific Islands.
"Here in Australia it means longer droughts, more wildfires. The incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened. Worldwide this past summer was the hottest on record."
Obama said he had not yet had time to go to the Great Barrier Reef, but he wanted it to be protected so his daughters and generations to come could see the natural wonder.
The president made a direct pitch to young people in the audience, urging them to speak up in support of strong action on climate change because they deserved to inherit a clean, healthy, sustainable world.
He said it was natural "that those of us who start getting grey hair are a little set in their ways" and had entrenched interests. Companies had made investments in certain energy sources, the president said, so change could be "uncomfortable and difficult".
"That's why it's so important for the next generation to be able to step in and say, you know, it doesn't have to be this way," Obama said.
Earlier on Saturday the UN secretary general, Ban Ki Moon, said he had been briefed that the leaders were actively discussing the issue of a climate change, which he nominated as "the defining issue of our times" and therefore a natural topic of G20 discussion.
He called on the G20 to "take a lead" on climate and urged G20 countries to make "ambitious pledges" to the Green Climate Fund.
LOAD-DATE: November 15, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
312 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 15, 2014 Saturday 5:55 AM GMT
Barack Obama tells G20 a global climate change deal is possible and vital;
US president says every nation has a responsibility to do its part and 'overcome old divides, look squarely at the science and reach a strong global climate agreement next year'· G20 Brisbane: follow our live coverage
BYLINE: Daniel Hurst and Lenore Taylor in Brisbane
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 822 words
Barack Obama has stared down both Republican hostility at home and the reluctance of his Australian G20 hosts to insist that the world can clinch a new climate change deal next year.
The president used a speech on the sidelines of the G20 in Brisbane, Australia, to confirm what was revealed by the Guardian on Friday : that the US would be contributing $3bn to the Green Climate Fund that aims to help developing nations cope with the effects of global warming.
And he insisted nowhere had more to lose from rising temperatures than the Asia Pacific region and Australia in particular.
"No nation is immune and every nation has a responsibility to do its part," Obama said. "You will recall at the beginning I said the US and Australia has a lot in common. Well one of the things we have in common is we produce a lot of carbon ... which means we've got to step up."
In the backrooms of the G20 meeting, Australia was continuing to resist language in the official communique encouraging countries to make pledges to the Green Climate Fund, but to a rousing reception at a local university, Obama announced the $3bn US commitment.
Obama said the new funding would help vulnerable communities with early-warning systems, stronger defences against storm surges, and climate-resilient infrastructure, while supporting farmers to plant more durable crops.
He hailed the deal he struck in Beijing on Wednesday, saying China's pledge to ensure its carbon emissions peaked by 2030 was historic.
"The reason that's so important is because if China as it develops adapts the same per capita carbon emissions as advanced economies like the US or Australia, this planet doesn't stand a chance because they've got a lot more people," Obama said.
"So them setting up a target sends a powerful message to the world that all countries, whether you are a developed country, a developing country or somewhere in between, you've got to be able to overcome old divides, look squarely at the science and reach a strong global climate agreement next year.
"And if China and the US can agree on this then the world can agree on this, we can get this done and it is necessary for us to get it done."
Obama faces domestic political challenges implementing greater curbs on greenhouse gas emissions in the US after the Republicans won control of both houses of Congress in mid-term elections last week.
Mitch McConnell, who will take over as the majority leader of the Senate, has called the China deal part of Obama's "ideological war on coal" and signalled that Republicans would seek to ease the burden of power station emission regulations.
The Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, told G20 counterparts earlier on Saturday they could raise any issue they liked during the leaders' retreat.
Abbott has previously resisted calls to make climate change a substantive agenda item at the G20, arguing the summit should focus on economic issues including increasing global growth.
Abbott himself referred to his government's domestic policies, including the abolition in July of Australia's carbon pricing scheme, when he spoke at the leaders' retreat.
Obama struck a markedly different tone in his speech to students and invited guests at the University of Queensland.
"I know that there has been a healthy debate in this country about it," the president said. "Here in the Asia Pacific nobody has more at stake when it comes to thinking about, and then acting on, climate change.
"Here a climate that increases in temperature will mean more extreme and frequent storms, more flooding, rising seas that submerge Pacific Islands.
"Here in Australia it means longer droughts, more wildfires. The incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened. Worldwide this past summer was the hottest on record."
Obama said he had not yet had time to go to the Great Barrier Reef, but he wanted it to be protected so his daughters and generations to come could see the natural wonder.
The president made a direct pitch to young people in the audience, urging them to speak up in support of strong action on climate change because they deserved to inherit a clean, healthy, sustainable world.
He said it was natural "that those of us who start getting grey hair are a little set in their ways" and had entrenched interests. Companies had made investments in certain energy sources, the president said, so change could be "uncomfortable and difficult".
"That's why it's so important for the next generation to be able to step in and say, you know, it doesn't have to be this way," Obama said.
Earlier on Saturday the UN secretary general, Ban Ki Moon, said he had been briefed that the leaders were actively discussing the issue of a climate change, which he nominated as "the defining issue of our times" and therefore a natural topic of G20 discussion.
He called on the G20 to "take a lead" on climate and urged G20 countries to make "ambitious pledges" to the Green Climate Fund.
LOAD-DATE: November 15, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
313 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 15, 2014 Saturday 4:53 AM GMT
G20: Barack Obama uses visit to reassert US influence in Asia Pacific;
US president says China must 'adhere to the same rules as other nations, whether in trade or on the seas'G20 Brisbane: follow our live coverage
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 1075 words
Barack Obama has sharply reasserted the United States' military, economic and political influence in the Asia Pacific and the importance of his so-called "pivot" to the region.
The president said the US would work "day in, day out, steadily and deliberately" to deepen its military, economic and diplomatic engagement - saying that by the end of the decade a majority of the US navy and air force would be based out of the Pacific because "the United States is and always will be a Pacific power".
The president's address had a blunt message for China, raising the question of what role China wanted to play in the region and insisting China - currently engaged in territorial disputes in the South China Sea - must "adhere to the same rules as other nations, whether in trade or on the seas".
"America will continue to stand up for our interests and principles including our unwavering support for the fundamental human rights of all people. We do not benefit from a relationship with China or any other country in which we put our values and our ideals aside," he said.
And it had a message for Australia, the host of the G20 meeting the president is attending but a country that has been reluctant to even discuss climate change at the summit. He said every nation had a "responsibility to do its part" in reducing greenhouse emissions and announced a $3bn US pledge to the green climate fund.
"Here in the Asia Pacific nobody has more at stake when it comes to thinking about and then acting on climate change.
"Here a climate that increases in temperature will mean more extreme and frequent storms, more flooding, rising seas that submerge Pacific islands. Here in Australia it means longer droughts, more wildfires. The incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened...
"No nation is immune and every nation has a responsibility to do its part. And you will recall at the beginning I said the US and Australia have a lot in common. Well one of the things we have in common is we produce a lot of carbon ... which means we've got to step up," he said.
Obama said America would have a bigger defence presence in south-east Asia, including Singapore, finalise new defence guidelines with Japan, deepen missile defence collaboration with the Republic of Korea, rotate more marines through bases in northern Australia and conduct more counterterrorism training with the Philippines.
The US had been accused of becoming diverted from the strategic shift - or "rebalancing" - towards to Asia, first outlined in a speech to the Australian parliament in November 2011, with events in the Middle East repeatedly drawing foreign policy focus back towards that region.
But the president used the speech during his visit to Brisbane to reject categorically this idea.
"There have been times where people have been sceptical about this rebalancing. They're wondering whether America has staying power to sustain it," he said before vowing that "day in, day out, steadily, deliberately, we will continue to deepen our engagement using every element of our power - diplomacy, military, economic development and the power of our values."
He listed security and economic pressures in the region and insisted that international law, peaceful dispute resolution, democracy, open markets and human rights were the only acceptable way to solve them.
"We see dangers that could undermine ... progress. And we can't look at those problems through rose tinted glasses. North Korea's nuclear and missile programs. Disputes over territory - remote islands and rocky shoals - threaten to spiral into confrontation. The failure to uphold universal human rights denies justice to citizens and denies countries their full potential.
"The question we face is which of these futures will define the Asia Pacific in the century to come. Will we move towards further integration, more justice, more peace, or do we move towards disorder, disintegration? These are our choices, Conflict or cooperation? Oppression or liberty? Here in Australia three years ago, in your parliament, I made it clear where the United States stands," the president said in the speech at the University of Queensland.
"As a Pacific power, the United States has invested our blood and treasure to advance this vision. We don't just talk about it. We invest in this vision. Generations of Americans have served and died here so that the people of the Asia Pacific might live free. So no one should ever question our resolve or our commitments to our allies."
The original pivot raised concerns in China, especially as it contained a new defence agreement with Australia, including the original announcement of the rotation of marines through a military base in Darwin.
Immediately before this visit to Australia, Obama had a successful trip to Beijing, announcing a significant agreement on cutting greenhouse emissions with Chinese president Xi Jinping on the sidelines of an Apec meeting in Beijing.
Speaking as they announced that deal, Obama said his discussions with the Chinese president had allowed him to to dismiss the idea that "our pivot to Asia is about containing China".
But fundamental competitive tensions between the superpowers remain.
Xi used Apec to assert his own vision or "Asia Pacific dream", promising aid and infrastructure spending in the region, and to push for a new Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific - a distraction from the US-backed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade talks, which exclude China.
Obama used his Brisbane speech to vow that the US would continue leading the efforts to realise the TPP, which he said would be a "historic achievement".
China has also won the backing of 21 countries for its new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. After pressure from the US and a personal phone call from Obama to the prime minister, Tony Abbott, Australia rejected a request from China that it sign on as a founding member of the bank, citing concerns about governance and transparency - although the issue split the cabinet.
The president immediately won over the Australian crowd, starting his speech with the confession that the only problem with his visits to Australia was that he had to go to conferences instead of the beach and revealing that he had tweeted about some research conducted at the university he was attending to his 31 million Twitter followers - a following he said "wasn't bad, even though it was slightly fewer than Lady Gaga's".
LOAD-DATE: November 15, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
314 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 15, 2014 Saturday 3:28 AM GMT
G20: Tony Abbott 'whingeing' about domestic agenda on world stage;
Opposition leader Bill Shorten says Australian PM made 'weird and graceless' opening address on the carbon tax, asylum seekers and budget problems· G20 Brisbane: follow our live coverage
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor and Daniel Hurst
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 878 words
Tony Abbott has highlighted his domestic political agenda during an opening address to world leaders in Brisbane, citing the abolition of carbon pricing, the hardline stance on asylum-seeker boat arrivals and "massively difficult" budget measures.
The Australian prime minister conceded his counterparts could raise any topic they wish in the G20's closed-door leaders retreat - despite his wish that it remain economics-focused - after intense pressure from Europe and the US for stronger action on climate change.
And Abbott injected some Australian familiarity by urging prime ministers and presidents to address each other by their first names.
The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, mocked Abbott for a "weird and graceless" speech, saying the prime minister had used his moment in front of the world's most important leaders to complain that Australians did not support a co-payment on visits to the doctor.
At the start of the leaders retreat in Brisbane, Abbott linked his domestic political agenda with the conference aim of spurring growth in G20 economies by 2%.
"The world is looking to all of us right now to try to demonstrate to an uncertain and at times anxious world there are people who know what they are doing, that there are people who have a plan, a plan for growth and for jobs," he told the leaders representing 85% of the world's gross domestic product.
Abbott called for a candid discussion, saying: "We may not always be able to agree but I hope we can at least be open with each other over this time."
After long resisting any focus on what he sees as non-economic issues, including climate change, he conceded other things were likely to be raised.
"Obviously I would like this discussion to focus on the politics of economic reform, that's what I would like the discussion to do ... In the end, though, this is your retreat, it is open to any of you to raise any subject that you wish," he said.
"The only rules, as far as I'm concerned, are if we can speak from our heart rather than from a script, that would be good. If we could be reasonably concise, five minutes please at the most, that would be good and if we could use first names, that would be good as well. Because whatever disagreements we might have, I think it helps if there can at least be personal warmth amongst us."
Abbott then spoke of his own record in abolishing the carbon tax, stopping "illegal" asylum-seeker boats, building roads and repairing the budget. His budgetary goal, he said, was proving "massively difficult" because "it doesn't matter what spending program you look at, it doesn't matter how wasteful that spending program might appear, there are always some people in the community who vote, who love that program very much".
He nominated deregulation of higher education fees and the introduction of a Medicare co-payment as especially difficult, but necessary reforms.
Shorten issued a statement denouncing Abbott's speech as "a disastrous missed opportunity for Australia".
"This was Tony Abbott's moment in front of the most important and influential leaders in the world and he's whingeing that Australians don't want his GP tax," the opposition leader said.
"This was his opportunity to show why Australia should be considered a world leader; he's had months to prepare for this moment. Instead he boasted of taking Australia backwards on climate change action, making it harder for Australians to go to university and pricing sick people out of getting the healthcare they need."
The Australian treasurer, Joe Hockey, speaking after a meeting of the finance ministers, said those in the room had a "collective determination to deliver more economic growth and as a result of that more jobs".
He said the resolution to increase economic growth by 2% by 2018 was an "unprecedented break from business-as-usual" which, if achieved, would equate to "$2tn in additional global economic activity and millions of new jobs".
"I want to emphasise that my finance minister colleagues and I are resolute in our determination to use all policy levers to generate growth and jobs," Hockey said after the fifth and final meeting of finance ministers under Australia's G20 presidency.
"Our individual growth strategies include over 1,000 measures that will lift infrastructure investment, increase trade and competition, cut red tape and lift labour market participation."
Hockey said Abbott would have more to say on Sunday about the growth target and plans to establish a global infrastructure hub in Sydney to drive private sector investment.
The treasurer said G20 countries had also "set out to restore integrity and resilience to our tax bases, and give our citizens the confidence that everyone is paying their fair share of tax".
"Our effort has continued right up to this summit, and I welcome the recent proposal to amend certain intellectual property regimes or 'patent boxes' to ensure that they are not inappropriately used for tax avoidance," Hockey said. "This proposal continues our work on harmful tax practices and I commend it to other G20 and OECD members for their consideration."
Civil society groups have reaffirmed calls for G20 leaders to take strong action against tax avoidance and to ensure inclusive growth so the benefits flowed to the poorest households.
LOAD-DATE: November 15, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
315 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 15, 2014 Saturday 1:54 AM GMT
Obama's $3bn for climate fund could kickstart action on global warming;
Green Climate Fund pledge broadly welcomed by campaignersMove may help erode divisions between developed and developing statesG20: Obama to pledge up to $3bn to help poor countries on climate change
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg US environment correspondent
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 961 words
Barack Obama's handshake deal with China and $3bn pledge for climate finance could break down the wall between rich and poor countries that has blocked action on global warming for 20 years, observers of the negotiations said.
The White House announced the $3bn pledge on Friday, putting climate change firmly on the agenda of the G20 summit in Brisbane and injecting momentum into United Nations talks ahead of a key meeting in Lima this month.
The $3bn is the most pledged by any country to date to the Green Climate Fund, set up to help poor countries fight climate change. The US contribution puts the fund at nearly $6bn towards its initial $10bn goal.
Robert Menendez, one of four Democratic Senators who had pressed Obama to stump up for climate finance, said the pledge could unlock UN talks.
"The announced $3bn pledge is exactly what's needed to bring developing countries to the table for a meaningful climate agreement in Paris next year," the New Jersey Democrat said in a statement.
Campaign groups also widely praised the pledge as a sign of Obama's commitment to his climate change agenda - but a number of groups said America could have done far more.
The Catholic foreign mission movement, the Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, said America should have given five much more.
"Although $3bn is a large amount, given the effects of climate change that we already see - and the predicted increase in hurricanes, tropical disease, hunger and migration - we believe that this number falls short of the US moral obligation towards the $15bn necessary to jump-start the fund and the hundreds of billions necessary to meet the actual needs of our neighbours in the developing countries that are most at risk to climate change," the mission said.
Brandon Wu, a policy analyst for ActionAid, said the pledge was a fraction of the support for the energy industry.
"The US spends up to $37bn per year on fossil fuel subsidies. We can do better than $2.5bn over four years for a fund designed to help people in poor countries who are already living with the effects of climate change - supporting action that will save lives and build a better future for us all," he said in a statement.
As expected, the Republican leadership in Congress attacked the pledge, and threatened to block funds.
"Obama's pledge to give unelected bureaucrats at the UN $3bn for climate change initiatives is an unfortunate decision to not listen to voters in this most recent election cycle," Jim Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican and the likely incoming chair of the Senate environment and public works committee said in a statement.
"The president's climate change agenda has only siphoned precious taxpayer dollars away from the real problems facing the American people," he added.
The president's paired announcements - a historic deal with China to cut carbon pollution followed 72 hours later by the $3bn pledge for climate finance - brought reassurance this week to campaigners and observers of climate negotiations that Obama would not scrap his climate plan to suit a Republican-controlled Congress.
"It shows that the US is willing to lead both in terms of significant emissions reductions and in helping to mobilise finance to deal with this challenge," said Jake Schmidt, who heads international climate policy for the Natural Resources Defence Council. "Obama is stepping out and saying: 'this is something I am going to lead on'."
Taiya Smith, an adviser to the Hank Paulson Institute who has worked on US-China climate negotiations, said she was waiting to see Obama's next steps. "The Obama administration is thinking about his leadership and how Obama will be seen on climate change," she said. "It doesn't necessarily mean the US is going to be taking up leadership on climate change. Let's see if they continue to follow through on this."
For now, however, campaigners said Obama had scored a critical point for the international climate negotiations, which have been grinding along for more than 20 years while greenhouse gas emissions soared.
The old divisions between rich and poor countries, the climate polluters of the past and the rising economies now spewing out carbon in their rush to prosperity, were wearing away, they said.
"You are seeing, I think, the beginning of signs they are trying to overcome that old firewall that has persisted in negotiations between developed and developing countries as defined in 1992," said Pete Ogden, a former White House adviser, who now leads the international climate programme at the Centre for American Progress.
"Both of these major moments have to do not just with developed countries acting, but developed countries acting in partnership with the developing world, and that is the only way that we will ever solve the problem."
The first blurring of the lines this week came on Wednesday when Obama and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, announced joint action to cut carbon pollution.
The Green Climate Fund was also eroding those divisions, with South Korea, Mexico and Indonesia putting up funds along with traditional donor countries like the US, France and Germany. Peru and Costa Rica are also expected to make pledges at a donors conference in Berlin next week.
Those commitments could reset the dynamics of the climate negotiations, said Karen Orenstein, a climate analyst for Friends of the Earth.
"Developing countries are already doing a lot to address climate change with their own resources but they can do more if they have international support and the Green Climate Fund is a really key component of that, of enabling poorer countries to do more," she said. "Climate change is a global problem so having international support to increase the ambition of others is really important to getting to a global solution."
LOAD-DATE: November 15, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
316 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 15, 2014 Saturday 1:34 AM GMT
Climate change: Europe and US press G20 leaders for strong action;
Pressure has succeeded to an extent but Green Climate Fund remains a tensely-debated sticking pointG20 Brisbane: follow our live coverage
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 823 words
Pressure from Europe and the United States for G20 leaders to make strong commitments on climate change despite the objections of the host nation Australia has continued to the last minute and has to some extent succeeded.
But the Green Climate Fund - to which the US is poised to announce a significant $3bn contribution - remains a tensely-debated sticking point.
As revealed by the Guardian on Friday, president Barack Obama will make a substantial pledge to the fund to help poor countries fight climate change while in Brisbane, again putting the US at odds with Australia, which has argued against diplomatic efforts for G20 leaders to promise more contributions and has been reluctant to make contributions of its own.
It is understood a reference to "encouraging" countries to contribute to the fund remains "in brackets" in the draft final communique - meaning it has not yet been agreed - with the principal objections coming from Australia.
It is understood the prime minister, Tony Abbott, and his advisers will have to decide whether to allow the language to proceed in the consensus-driven G20 process.
But a s Guardian Australia revealed a week ago, the text that had at that stage made it through the G20's closed-door process was very general, and made no mention of the fund. It reads as follows: "We support strong and effective action to address climate change, consistent with sustainable economic growth and certainty for business and investment.
"We reaffirm our resolve to adopt a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that is applicable to all parties at the 21st Conference of the Parties in Paris in 2015."
Since that time it is understood the communique has also been strengthened to call on countries to unveil their post 2020 climate commitments early next year.
Abbott had previously insisted Australia would not make any contributions to the green climate fund, although it is understood the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which leads Australia's negotiating position in international climate talks, has been considering whether Canberra should make a pledge. Sources said no final decision had been made.
Asked about the fund before last year's UN climate meeting in Warsaw, the prime minister said: "We're not going to be making any contributions to that." It was reported that at one of its first cabinet meetings the Abbott government decided it would make no contributions to the fund, which was described as "socialism masquerading as environmentalism".
Australia has also come under intense pressure to announce a target for post-2020 greenhouse gas reductions after the shock announcement from Obama and Chinese premier Xi Jinping of new national climate change goals.
The US has agreed to cut its emissions by 26% to 28% of 2005 levels by 2025 - a doubling of the pace of its reductions. If Australia were to make similar cuts by 2025 against its 2000 benchmark, it would need to reduce emissions by between 28% and 31%.
Asked where the deal left Australia's climate change policy, the expert adviser to the former government Professor Ross Garnaut said: "Exactly where it was before the US-China announcement - up shit creek."
Abbott has said he welcomed the announcement, but Australia was focused on taking "immediate action" through its "direct action" emissions reduction fund. The environment minister, Greg Hunt, said Australia would announce a post-2020 target early next year, well in time for the UN conference in Paris where it is hoped a post-2020 deal will be agreed.
Australia has insisted the G20 is not the right place to discuss climate change, because it is an economic forum.
This stance was backed by the Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, but not by the Turkish prime minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, whose country will host the next G20 meeting, and who said on Friday that focusing only on economic growth was shortsighted.
"The biggest challenge to all humanity today is climate change ... every year we are facing new challenges and we are facing new challenges and we need to address this future of ours. If the G20 agenda is only limited to financial issues, G20 cannot function, cannot have global legitimacy," he said.
UN secretary general Ban Ki Moon said he had been briefed that the leaders were "actively discussing the issue of a climate change", which he nominated as "the defining issue of our times" and therefore a "natural" topic of G20 discussion.
He called on the G20 to "take a lead" on climate and urged G20 countries to make "ambitious pledges" to the green climate fund.
Introducing the "retreat" at the start of the G20 meeting, Abbott told the world leaders he would prefer the discussion to focus on "the politics of economic reform" but "in the end, though, this is your retreat, it is open to any of you to raise any subject that you wish".
LOAD-DATE: November 15, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
317 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 15, 2014 Saturday
Late Edition - Final
Obama Offers Assurances of U.S. Shift Toward Asia
BYLINE: By MARK LANDLER
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 5
LENGTH: 417 words
BRISBANE, Australia -- President Obama sought to give new momentum to his strategic shift to Asia on Saturday, telling an audience of students here that the United States could be a force for order in a fast-growing region shadowed by threats like a nuclear-armed North Korea and maritime disputes between China and its neighbors.
''I'm here today to say that American leadership in the Asia Pacific will always be a fundamental focus of my foreign policy,'' Mr. Obama said at the University of Queensland.
In his address, the president acknowledged skepticism in some quarters about how real the shift to Asia was, given distractions like the Islamic State, the Ebola outbreak, and the Ukraine crisis. ''They wonder whether America has the staying power to sustain it,'' he said.
But he insisted that the United States was enriching its military ties and trade relations with Asian countries, detailing a series of military operations in the region. ''Day in and day out, steadily and deliberately, we will continue to deepen our engagement,'' he said.
Mr. Obama said the United States would rotate additional Marines through Darwin, in northern Australia, where it has established an outpost to project American military might in the Pacific. He described missile defense cooperation with South Korea, counterterrorism training with the Philippines, and defense alliances with Japan.
The president, who was ending a three-nation Asian tour by attending a meeting of the Group of 20 industrialized powers in Brisbane, was bolstered by a landmark climate agreement with China this week. He announced a $3 billion American pledge to a fund that will help developing countries confront the dangers of climate change.
Mr. Obama's heavy emphasis on climate change could stir tensions with his Australian host, Prime Minister Tony Abbott, a longtime skeptic of climate science who has resisted putting it on the agenda of the Group of 20 meeting. In a shot at Mr. Abbott, Mr. Obama joked that he knew climate change was the subject of ''healthy debate'' in Australia.
The president also visited Myanmar, where the reform process has bogged down amid widespread violence against the country's Muslim minority and signs that the military-dominated government will not allow the pro-democracy leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, to run for president.
''The question we face is which of these futures will define the Asia Pacific in the century to come,'' the president said. ''Conflict or cooperation? Oppression or liberty?''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/world/asia/obama-offers-assurances-of-us-shift-toward-asia.html
LOAD-DATE: November 15, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
318 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 15, 2014 Saturday
Late Edition - Final
U.S. to Give $3 Billion to Climate Fund to Help Poor Nations, and Spur Rich Ones
BYLINE: By CORAL DAVENPORT and MARK LANDLER; Coral Davenport reported from Washington, and Mark Landler from Yangon, Myanmar.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 5
LENGTH: 885 words
WASHINGTON -- President Obama announced on Saturday that the United States will contribute $3 billion to a new international fund intended to help the world's poorest countries address the effects of climate change.
Mr. Obama made the announcement at a summit meeting of the Group of 20 industrial powers this weekend in Brisbane, Australia, on the heels of his landmark announcement this week that the United States and China will jointly commit to curbing greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade.
The two announcements, both unveiled at prominent global meetings with world leaders, highlight Mr. Obama's intention to use the last two years of his administration to push forward on climate change policy, which he sees as a cornerstone of his legacy.
Mr. Obama aims to be the lead broker of an international climate change accord, to be signed in Paris next year, that would commit all the world's major economies to significantly cutting their emissions of planet-warming carbon pollution from the burning of coal and oil.
''We're doing this because it is in our national interest to build resilience in developing countries to climate change,'' said the senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to explain the announcement.
''It is a vital part of establishing momentum'' behind the global climate talks in Paris next year, a second American official said.
But Mr. Obama's pledge, spending American tax dollars on foreign aid related to climate change, is certain to garner further criticism from Republicans, who have already denounced his domestic climate change policies as ''job-killing'' regulations.
On Wednesday, after Mr. Obama announced in China that the United States would cut its emissions by 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025, Speaker John A. Boehner said, ''This announcement is yet another sign that the president intends to double down on his job-crushing policies no matter how devastating the impact for America's heartland and the country as a whole.''
It is not clear whether Mr. Obama's $3 billion pledge will come from existing sources of funding, or whether he will have to ask Congress to appropriate the money. Since 2010, the Obama administration has spent about $2.5 billion to help poor countries adapt to climate change and develop clean sources of energy, but Republicans are certain to push back against additional funding requests linked to climate change and foreign aid.
The pledge is directed to the Green Climate Fund, a financial institution created last year by the United Nations with headquarters in Incheon, South Korea. It comes ahead of a Nov. 20 climate meeting in Berlin, at which countries have been asked to make formal commitments to the fund.
In December, global climate negotiators will gather in Lima, Peru, to begin drafting the 2015 Paris accord.
The American contribution is meant to spur other countries to make similar pledges. Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, has called for governments to create an initial fund of about $10 billion.
Even before Mr. Obama's pledge, at least 10 countries, including France, Germany and South Korea, had pledged a total of around $3 billion to the fund. On Thursday, the Kyodo News Agency reported that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan would announce a contribution of about $1.5 billion at the Group of 20 meeting. The American contribution is expected to be the largest.
''The contribution by the U.S. will have a direct impact on mobilizing contributions from the other large economies,'' said Hela Cheikhrouhou, executive director of the Green Climate Fund. ''The other large economies -- Japan, the U.K. -- have been watching to see what the U.S. will do.''
David Waskow, an expert on climate change negotiations with the World Resources Institute, a research organization in Washington, said: ''This continues the momentum and really builds on what they did with the announcement in China. I think we'll now see a broader set of actors who are willing to make contributions.''
Money, and lots of it, is viewed as a crucial part of reaching a climate change deal in Paris in 2015. In particular, the world's least developed economies insist that the world's richest economies -- which are also the largest greenhouse gas polluters -- must commit to paying billions of dollars to help the world's poorest adapt to the ravages of climate change.
Other nations are likely to view an American pledge of climate funding as a small down payment on a long-term commitment to ultimately send tens of billions of dollars in public aid and private investment related to climate change.
''Finance has become this zero-sum game. Put money on the table and we'll talk; if you don't put money on the table then we'll walk,'' said Rachel Kyte, vice president for sustainability for the World Bank, which is closely involved in the climate funding talks. ''It's an essential component of a deal.''
At a 2009 climate change summit meeting in Copenhagen, Hillary Rodham Clinton, then the secretary of state, pledged that by 2020 the United States would help mobilize $100 billion, through a combination of public aid and private investments, to flow annually from rich countries to help the poor economies deal with climate change.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/us/politics/obama-climate-change-fund-3-billion-announcement.html
LOAD-DATE: November 15, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
319 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 14, 2014 Friday 9:04 PM GMT
Obama's $3bn for climate fund could kickstart action on global warming;
Green Climate Fund pledge broadly welcomed by campaignersMove may help erode divisions between developed and developing statesG20: Obama to pledge up to $3bn to help poor countries on climate change
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg US environment correspondent
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 962 words
Barack Obama's handshake deal with China and $3bn pledge for climate finance could break down the wall between rich and poor countries that has blocked action on global warming for 20 years, observers of the negotiations said.
The White House announced the $3bn pledge on Friday, putting climate change firmly on the agenda of the G20 summit in Brisbane and injecting momentum into United Nations talks ahead of a key meeting in Lima this month.
The $3bn is the most pledged by any country to date to the Green Climate Fund, set up to help poor countries fight climate change. The US contribution puts the fund at nearly $6bn towards its initial $10bn goal.
Robert Menendez, one of four Democratic Senators who had pressed Obama to stump up for climate finance, said the pledge could unlock UN talks.
"The announced $3bn pledge is exactly what's needed to bring developing countries to the table for a meaningful climate agreement in Paris next year," the New Jersey Democrat said in a statement.
Campaign groups also widely praised the pledge as a sign of Obama's commitment to his climate change agenda - but a number of groups said America could have done far more.
The Catholic foreign mission movement, the Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, said America should have given five times as much.
"Although $3bn is a large amount, given the effects of climate change that we already see - and the predicted increase in hurricanes, tropical disease, hunger and migration - we believe that this number falls short of the US moral obligation towards the $15bn necessary to jump-start the fund and the hundreds of billions necessary to meet the actual needs of our neighbours in the developing countries that are most at risk to climate change," the mission said.
Brandon Wu, a policy analyst for ActionAid, said the pledge was a fraction of the support for the energy industry.
"The US spends up to $37bn per year on fossil fuel subsidies. We can do better than $2.5bn over four years for a fund designed to help people in poor countries who are already living with the effects of climate change - supporting action that will save lives and build a better future for us all," he said in a statement.
As expected, the Republican leadership in Congress attacked the pledge, and threatened to block funds.
"Obama's pledge to give unelected bureaucrats at the UN $3bn for climate change initiatives is an unfortunate decision to not listen to voters in this most recent election cycle," Jim Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican and the likely incoming chair of the Senate environment and public works committee said in a statement.
"The president's climate change agenda has only siphoned precious taxpayer dollars away from the real problems facing the American people," he added.
The president's paired announcements - a historic deal with China to cut carbon pollution followed 72 hours later by the $3bn pledge for climate finance - brought reassurance this week to campaigners and observers of climate negotiations that Obama would not scrap his climate plan to suit a Republican-controlled Congress.
"It shows that the US is willing to lead both in terms of significant emissions reductions and in helping to mobilise finance to deal with this challenge," said Jake Schmidt, who heads international climate policy for the Natural Resources Defence Council. "Obama is stepping out and saying: 'this is something I am going to lead on'."
Taiya Smith, an adviser to the Hank Paulson Institute who has worked on US-China climate negotiations, said she was waiting to see Obama's next steps. "The Obama administration is thinking about his leadership and how Obama will be seen on climate change," she said. "It doesn't necessarily mean the US is going to be taking up leadership on climate change. Let's see if they continue to follow through on this."
For now, however, campaigners said Obama had scored a critical point for the international climate negotiations, which have been grinding along for more than 20 years while greenhouse gas emissions soared.
The old divisions between rich and poor countries, the climate polluters of the past and the rising economies now spewing out carbon in their rush to prosperity, were wearing away, they said.
"You are seeing, I think, the beginning of signs they are trying to overcome that old firewall that has persisted in negotiations between developed and developing countries as defined in 1992," said Pete Ogden, a former White House adviser, who now leads the international climate programme at the Centre for American Progress.
"Both of these major moments have to do not just with developed countries acting, but developed countries acting in partnership with the developing world, and that is the only way that we will ever solve the problem."
The first blurring of the lines this week came on Wednesday when Obama and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, announced joint action to cut carbon pollution.
The Green Climate Fund was also eroding those divisions, with South Korea, Mexico, and Indonesia putting up funds along with traditional donor countries like the US, France and Germany. Peru and Costa Rica are also expected to make pledges at a donors conference in Berlin next week.
Those commitments could reset the dynamics of the climate negotiations, said Karen Orenstein, a climate analyst for Friends of the Earth.
"Developing countries are already doing a lot to address climate change with their own resources but they can do more if they have international support and the Green Climate Fund is a really key component of that, of enabling poorer countries to do more," she said. "Climate change is a global problem so having international support to increase the ambition of others is really important to getting to a global solution."
LOAD-DATE: November 14, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
320 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 14, 2014 Friday 6:06 PM GMT
G20: Obama to pledge up to $3bn to help poor countries on climate change;
Exclusive: Green Climate Fund commitment to be unveiled as leaders gather for G20 summit in hope of spurring others to stump up cash in a move likely to embarrass the host nation, Australia
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1442 words
Barack Obama will make a substantial pledge to a fund to help poor countries fight climate change, only days after his historic carbon pollution deal with China.
In a one-two punch, the US plans to pledge a maximum of $3bn over the next four years to help poor countries invest in clean energy and cope with rising seas and extreme weather, according to those briefed by administration officials.
The White House told campaign groups and thinktanks that the figure was conditional on other countries making ambitious funding commitments. The American contribution would be capped at 30% of the fund, and the US would stump up the full $3bn only if the fund met its initial $10bn target, the official said.
The financial commitment will be unveiled as world leaders gather for the G20 summit in Brisbane, sending a powerful signal of Obama's determination to act on climate change despite the Republican takeover of Congress in midterm elections.
The White House said it was good for US national security - and foreign aid budgets - to give to the Green Climate Fund.
"More resilient communities are less likely to descend into instability or conflict in the aftermath of extreme climate events, needing more costly interventions to restore stability and rebuild," the official said. "Building resilience also helps safeguard our investments in many areas, including food security, health, education and economic growth. In addition, it's in our interest to help them grow their economies in a way that minimises dangerous carbon pollution." The official moved to neutralise anticipated Republican objections to the contribution, noting George Bush had also committed funds to climate finance. The Republican party leadership this week denounced the US-China deal as a "charade", and have threatened to defund Obama's climate measures.
The pledge to the Green Climate Fund was seen as critical to UN negotiations for a global climate deal. Developing countries have said they cannot sign on to emissions cuts at climate talks in Lima later this month without the funds.
Analysts said the $2.5bn figure under discussion before the Brisbane summit was just about enough to demonstrate that the US was willing to put up the cash.
"I think it's a good signal for unlocking the negotiations for Paris in 2015," said Alex Doukas, an international climate policy analyst at the World Resources Institute. Congress will still have to authorise the funds. But some analysts argue that it will be difficult for Republicans to cut out climate finance entirely.
The pledge from Obama could also help spur Britain and other countries to pay into a fund that so far has raised just under $3bn, well short of its initial $10bn target.
Jake Schmidt, who follows international climate negotiations for the Natural Resources Defence Council, said: "He is trying to use the G20 as a way to put pressure bilaterally and otherwise for countries to put their targets and their financing on the table."
There were early signs the strategy was paying off. The Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, was expected to announce a pledge of up to $1.5bn to the fund at the Brisbane summit, press reports said.
The financial commitments from the US and Japan are in strong contrast with Canada's and Australia's positions, which have said they will not contribute to the climate fund.
Indeed the announcement could again embarrass the G20 host country, Australia, which has been fiercely resisting climate change discussions distracting from its desired focus on "economic growth and jobs".
The Australian government was caught off guard when Obama and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping unveiled climate pledges on the eve of the summit.
As revealed by Guardian Australia, Australia has been arguing against behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts for G20 leaders to promise to make contributions to the fund.
The prime minister, Tony Abbott, had previously insisted Australia would not make any contributions to it, although it is understood the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which leads Australia's negotiating position in international climate talks, has been considering whether Canberra should make a pledge. Sources said no final decision had been made.
Asked about the fund before last year's UN climate meeting in Warsaw, the prime minister said: "We're not going to be making any contributions to that." It was reported that at one of its first cabinet meetings the Abbott government decided it would make no contributions to the fund that was described as "socialism masquerading as environmentalism".
Abbott disparaged the fund at the time, comparing it to a domestic fund championed by the former Greens leader Bob Brown, which he wants to abolish.
He told the Australian newspaper: "One thing the current government will never do is say one thing at home and a different thing abroad. We are committed to dismantling the Bob Brown bank [the Clean Energy Finance Corporation] at home so it would be impossible for us to support a Bob Brown bank on an international scale."
The government also pointedly dissented from support for the fund in a communique from last November's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting - a stance backed by Canada.
The Green Climate Fund aims to help poorer countries cut their emissions and prepare for the impact of climate change, and is seen as critical to securing developing-nation support for a successful deal on reducing emissions at the UN meeting in Paris next year.
More than $2.8bn had been pledged before the US commitment - including $1bn by France and almost $1bn by Germany. More pledges are expected at a special "pledging" conference in Berlin on 20 November. Britain has said it will make a "strong" contribution at that meeting.
Federal ministers raised strong objections to Australia's commitment to the Green Climate Fund during the cabinet discussion before Warsaw, a meeting to which Australia controversially declined to send the environment minister, Greg Hunt, or any ministerial representative. (Foreign minister Julie Bishop will be attending this year's meeting in Lima.)
In opposition Bishop raised strong concerns that money from the foreign aid budget was being directed towards the climate change fund. "Climate change funding should not be disguised as foreign aid funding," she said, accusing the former government of introducing the now-repealed carbon tax to pay for contributions to the fund.
"This is a tax to gather revenue to redistribute it around the economy and to buy themselves some brownie points at the United Nations," she said in 2011.
A showdown over the Green Climate Fund had been looming for next week, when a pledging conference was scheduled in Berlin.
However, it appears that Obama wanted to get out ahead of other countries - and focus the attention of G20 countries more firmly on climate change.
"He is seizing the opportunities that come his way to demonstrate to the world that the US is not going to backtrack on the progress he has made for the last five years, and that he is firmly committed to getting a strong deal in Paris," said Pete Ogden, a former White House adviser who is now the international climate and energy director at the Centre for American Progress.
"I think this is certainly about him showing that he is making no apologies for helping to build up an effective domestic climate policy and he is making no apologies for wanting to help lead global efforts to combat climate change. People around the world look at us and see what happened in the mid-terms. If they had any reason for concern that he would be diminished, I think the evidence of the last couple of days is going to put that to rest."
Heather Coleman, a climate analyst at Oxfam, said the US-China deal earlier in the week had helped lay the groundwork for Obama to offer a pledge on climate finance.
"Now that we have demonstrated that China is willing to move forward it does make it more palatable for the US to put more money on the table for international climate finance which everyone knows is the essential key to unlocking negotiations. Without finance you just don't get a global climate deal," she said.
The ballpark figure of $2.5bn to $3bn is not that much higher than the $2bn pledged to climate finance by George Bush in 2008.
"Ultimately this is money that will be appropriate by Congress, but the fact is for decades Congress has been investing in multilateral funds that support the efforts of countries to cut emissions and build cleaner economies," Ogden said.
Additional reporting by Lenore Taylor, Guardian Australia political editor
LOAD-DATE: November 14, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
321 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 14, 2014 Friday 12:01 PM GMT
Six myths about Australia's climate policy that never did wash;
These myths are endlessly repeated and sure won't be accepted in the wake of the US-China climate deal
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1618 words
1. Australia's policy is fine because other countries are using direct action, too, and not emissions trading schemes
This one was trotted out most recently by the treasurer, Joe Hockey, who said he welcomed the US-China climate deal because "the United States and, in fact, China both have direct action plans".
"I might've missed it... but I don't recall either the president of China or the president of the United States saying they were going to introduce a carbon tax," he told the ABC.
This myth - accepted by many in the media - confuses the actual point of comparison between different countries' climate policies - how much they reduce greenhouse gases - with the domestic policies by which those countries choose to do it.
If you define "direct action" as any policy to reduce emissions that isn't a trading scheme it could include any regulation, or subsidy - covering ones that have a real chance of cutting greenhouse gases, like Barack Obama's power plant regulations and ones that most experts think will struggle, like Australia's "reverse auction" emission reduction fund.
Suggesting that any kind of policy that isn't a market is equally effective just because it isn't a market - without considering its merits - is not only weird for a liberal politician, it's also patently silly.
2. Australia's policy is fine because we might meet our 2020 target to reduce emissions by 5%
Most modelling exercises suggest this is in fact unlikely, but Australia is at least in with a better chance because the job keeps getting easier before Direct Action has even started. In 2012 the promise to reduce emissions by 5% of 2000 levels by 2020 was calculated to require the cumulative reduction of 755m tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Last year new government calculations reduced that figure to 431m tonnes. Now calculations by Frontier Economics say the figure could be as low as 225m tonnes, if the renewable energy target stays in place to drive investment into clean generation, or somewhere around 300m tonnes if the government succeeds in paring back the RET. Official figures are soon likely to confirm this drop.
Whether we meet the 5% target or not, the real problem with Direct Action has always been that it doesn't prepare the economy for the deeper cuts that must inevitably follow after 2020 - the ones the US and China have just promised to make and that Australia is going to have to make by next year. Making deeper cuts only using the "emissions reduction fund" will be prohibitively, ridiculously expensive.
This point was made succinctly by Malcolm Turnbull in 2010 after he was deposed as Liberal leader, when he said direct action-style schemes were "a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale" and would be "a very expensive charge on the budget in the years ahead".
The "blue book" prepared by the Treasury for a possible incoming Coalition government in 2010 made the same point, saying "a market mechanism can achieve the necessary abatement at a cost per tonne of emissions that is far lower than alternative direct-action policies".
3. Australia's policy is fine because China and the US emit more greenhouse gases than we do
Even more bone-headed than the previous myths, this was advanced most succinctly in recent days by Liberal National party senator Ian Macdonald, who famously wore a hi-vis "Australians for Coal" vest in the Senate chamber, and who said in a statement on Friday:
"China emits 24% of the world's carbon emissions. The US emits 15% of the world's carbon emissions. Australia emits less than 1.5% of the world's carbon emissions. When the US and China get down to our level of emissions then we should join their plans. Until then, we should compete with the US and China in trade and local jobs terms by doing what we and the previous government both committed to and that is reducing our 1.4% of global emissions by 5%."
It is true that the US and China are the two biggest emitters in the world, and therefore critical to a successful international agreement - which is why Wednesday's announcement was so important. But it is also quite obviously true that no international agreement will ever be possible if countries like Australia opt out forever, which is what Macdonald is effectively suggesting. The senator also falls for another of the myths ...
4. Australia's bipartisan target for 2020 is 5% with no increase on that ever contemplated
Before the election Abbott and the environment minister, Greg Hunt, repeated a Coalition commitment to increasing Australia's emissions reduction target by a minimum of 5% rising to 25% under specific conditions for global action set down in 2009 and accepted by both major parties.
The range of targets and conditions under which Australia's target would be raised above 5% were repeated by Hunt in the Australian Financial Review in which he wrote "the Coalition is committed to a target of a 5% reduction in emissions and the conditions for extending that target further, based on international action".
In a speech to the Grattan Institute thinktank Hunt said "we also accept, and we gave support to the government for the targets, not just the 5% but also the conditions for change... we accept the targets, clearly, categorically, absolutely".
And Abbott stated the Coalition's commitment in a letter to former prime minister Kevin Rudd in December 2009, subsequently released under freedom of information laws, in which he requested information on the costs of the proposed emissions trading scheme, but also wrote "the Coalition's position of bipartisan support for emissions reduction targets - subject to the conditions that were earlier outlined - remains unchanged".
But since the election, Abbott insists he never promised anything other than 5%.
Whether or not 5% is a "fair share" of global emission reductions for Australia is debatable. If you adjust the starting years to allow for a fair comparison, it is broadly comparable with the US. But when the independent Climate Change Authority (which the government would like to abolish but hasn't been able to yet) analysed the question, it found the conditions set down in 2009 had been sufficiently met for Australia to treble its 2020 target to 15%.
5. Australia's policy is superior because it is happening now and the pledges being made by China and the US are for target dates that are ages and ages away
This astonishing argument was advanced by the prime minister on Thursday in response to the US and Chinese president's announcements.
"It is all very well to talk about what might happen in the far distant future but we are going to meet our 5% reduction target within six years. So, we are talking about the here and now... We are talking about the practical; we are talking about the real. We are not talking about what might hypothetically happen 15, 20, 25, 30 years down the track," he said.
Actually, they made 2020 commitments as well, and did stuff to meet them. This is about what Australia will do after 2020, which we need to announce by early next year and well in advance of the UN conference in Paris next December, so not in the far distant future. That pressure is even more intense after the US and Chinese announcement of their post-2020 targets.
And contrary to the argument advanced by Greg Sheridan in his article snappily entitled "US-China emissions caper won't change a thing" where he argues the announcement doesn't "actually require Beijing to do anything for a long time in the future", shifting to a low emissions economy takes time and meeting a target in 10 or 15 years' time requires changes to start now. That's the whole point of the negotiation. There's plenty of room to analyse whether the US and Chinese pledges require adequate greenhouse reductions, but suggesting that they should be "taken with a pinch of salt" because the target years are in the future misses the point of having target years.
6. Australia's policy is not out of step because China and the US want to reduce emissions by using coal-fired power stations with carbon capture and storage, and by switching to lower emission fossil fuels
Carbon capture and storage is in fact the only way the world will be able to continue using coal-fired power in the long term, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and it is a key part of the US-Chinese agreement.
You would think this would make it a priority for any Australian government, especially one that believes "coal is good for humanity", and that would bear a similarity with the China-US announcement.
But in the budget the government cut $459.3m over three years from its carbon capture and storage flagship program, leaving $191.7m to continue existing projects for the next seven years. (The program had already been cut by the previous Labor government and much of the funding remained unallocated.)
And the coal industry has "paused" a levy on black coal producers, which was supposed to build a $1bn industry fund to also finance research and demonstration into clean coal technology. It cited low coal prices for the halt. Some $250m has been spent from the fund on demonstration plants and a further $46m worth of grants are under assessment.
The objectives of Coal21, set up in 2006, have also been changed to allow the industry to use funding already collected to promote the use of coal. Its constitution now allows money to be spent on "promoting the use of coal both within Australia and overseas and promoting the economic and social benefits of the coal industry". About $50m has been set aside for "energy literacy", but only a small amount has been spent.
LOAD-DATE: November 14, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
322 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 14, 2014 Friday 11:22 AM GMT
Agricultural PPPs: why we need a fourth P for 'participation';
A Fairtrade Foundation event at parliament last week brought businesses and NGOs together to discuss the role of smallholder farmers in public-private partnerships
BYLINE: Tim Aldred
SECTION: SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS - FAIRTRADE PARTNER ZONE
LENGTH: 1318 words
Since the global food crisis of 2007-08, when the rising costs of staple foods sparked major political unrest across the world, governments have redoubled their efforts to tackle global hunger and rural poverty. An increasingly common approach has been to collaborate with the private sector, in order to leverage significant investment for agricultural programmes. The New Alliance for Food Security & Nutrition - which was launched by President Obama at the 2012 G8 Summit, and aimed to lift 50 million people out of poverty within 10 years - is perhaps the best-known within this new wave of agricultural public-private partnerships (PPPS). Keen to understand how well such partnerships were working for smallholder farmers, earlier this year the Fairtrade Foundation undertook a study of four agricultural PPPs in Ghana, Malawi and Kenya. Overall, our findings were far from positive. We found PPPs failing to engage effectively with smallholders, making assumptions about their needs, and treating farmers as beneficiaries rather than equal partners. There were few opportunities for farmers' representatives to sit around the table with government and business, or to input to the design or development of programmes intended to improve their position.
One example we looked at was the Ghana Commercial Agriculture Project, a $145m (£92.5) framework PPP established by the Government of Ghana, the World Bank and USAID. It aims to increase the productivity of smallholder farmers in the Accra Plains and SADA region, yet there has been just one occasion, in 2011, when smallholder farmers had an opportunity to express their views about the programme. Because the project is demand-driven, funds are allocated according to private sector applications, rather than assessment of farmers' needs.
Chief Adam Tampuri is president of the Gbankuliso Cashew Farmers' Association, the largest farmer-based organisation in the SADA region's Bole district, with nearly 1,000 smallholder members. Commenting on the GCAP, he expressed dismay at the lack of participation of local farmers. "Being a farmer leader...and having direct contact with other producers across the country and the continent - I think that we should be the ones who add value to reshaping the way a project can work for the benefit of producers. This project has come to change and improve the lives of farmers. But you cannot make a change if you do not have people working together," he said.
Last week, the Fairtrade Foundation brought businesses and NGOs together at a House of Lords event to discuss the opportunities and risks of agricultural public-private partnerships, and how they might be implemented in a way that benefits smallholders. Sharing Oxfam's recent research on agricultural PPPs in Africa, David Bright, the NGO's head of economic justice programming, said that ' mega-PPPs ' can result in African governments changing policies to make conditions more favourable for their investment. This means the risks for companies are reduced, but the risks for those living in poverty are not. For example, smallholders might end up losing title to their customary land to make way for PPPs.
"The important question is, who shares the risks and who receives the benefits?" Bright asked. "In the case of mega-PPPs, often the benefits are bypassing the poorest. Secondly, you have to consider the cost of investing in these partnerships instead of other programmes that could address poverty alleviation. A critical check and balance is having an accountability framework explaining how this investment will reduce poverty and create transparency mechanisms for the communities concerned." He said the private sector has a crucial role to play in driving poverty eradication and food insecurity improvements in Africa, but there are more effective, tried and tested approaches for donor aid that are more likely to reach those who need it most.
Ewan Reid from Matthew Algie, a coffee roasting company that has a long history of sourcing its beans from Fairtrade certified cooperatives, explained that his company had been seeking to go beyond ethical certification, to work in partnership with smallholder farmers on development projects for more than a decade. Although Matthew Algie had initially considered the possibility of investing in large-scale PPPs, it decided that as an SME its priorities might be ignored, just as the priorities of smallholder farmers often appear to be.
Instead, Matthew Algie has worked with ethical trading organisation, Twin to establish its own development projects on three continents, including a climate change adaptation project with the San Juan del Oro coffee cooperative in Peru. "The farmers are supported to become more resilient to the impacts of climate change and to deal with climate change-related disease such as coffee leaf rust, which helps them to continue producing coffee and earning a living, but as a company we also benefit from security of supply and longevity", Reid said. Other programmes have targeted the most marginalised groups, including women farmers and those living in conflict zones, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, where Matthew Algie supported farmers to gain organic and Fairtrade certification. The coffee company has also turned down offers to work on projects where they do not take into account the smallholders' needs and context. "There was a project in Rwanda that proposed installing washing stations for coffee, which would divert much-needed water away from growing other crops, in a community affected by food insecurity. We couldn't get involved with a project like that", Reid said. Despite being a relatively small business, Matthew Algie has lobbied on issues of concern, such as proposed changes to EU organic regulations, which would prevent smallholders from inter-cropping if the second crop is not organic. Such a move could have serious consequences for organic coffee farmers in the global south, who rely on inter-cropping for food security and additional income. Reid also points out that the proposed EU rule change runs contrary to PPP initiatives, often funded by the EU or EU governments, which encourage organic production. For two decades now, the Fairtrade Foundation has been working with businesses to bring about change for smallholders and their communities, so we know that there are many companies like Matthew Algie, that genuinely want to engage with farmers and work in true partnership. This approach can lead to benefits for both parties - the business can strengthen the sustainability of its supply chain and the smallholder farmer can be supported to work towards a more sustainable future. Problems arise when commercial interests are put front and centre, and when profits are allowed to be prioritised ahead of people.
If agricultural PPPs are to be effective, we need to add another 'P', to stand for the participation of smallholders. Admittedly, getting participation from a large number of smallholder farmers, who may be geographically dispersed across a sizeable area, is a challenge, but the onus should be on the donor to find ways to support farmer engagement. Without it, PPPs may overlook farmers' real needs and misunderstand the local context. As a result, genuine opportunities to transform the lives of the rural poor and tackle food insecurity may be lost.
Tim Aldred is head of policy and research at the Fairtrade Foundation
More from the Fairtrade partner zone:
The future of Fairtrade: let's not be afraid to dream b ig
Fairtrade pioneer Clipper Tea visits India to assess impact after 20 years
Fairtrade Access Fund offers up-front finance to farmers who need it most
Content on this page is paid for and provided by Fairtrade Foundation supporter of the supply chain hub
LOAD-DATE: November 14, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
323 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 14, 2014 Friday 8:11 AM GMT
G20: Obama to pledge $2.5bn to help poor countries on climate change;
Exclusive: Green Climate Fund commitment to be unveiled as leaders gather for G20 summit in hope of spurring others to stump up cash in a move likely to embarrass the host nation, Australia
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1246 words
Barack Obama will make a substantial pledge to a fund to help poor countries fight climate change, only days after his historic carbon pollution deal with China.
In a one-two punch, America plans to pledge at least $2.5bn and as much as $3bn over the next four years to help poor countries invest in clean energy and cope with rising seas and extreme weather, according to those briefed by administration officials.
The financial commitment will be unveiled as world leaders gather for the G20 summit in Brisbane, sending a powerful signal of Obama's determination to act on climate change despite the Republican takeover of Congress in mid-term elections.
The pledge to the Green Climate Fund was seen as critical to UN negotiations for a global climate deal. Developing countries have said they cannot sign on to emissions cuts at climate talks in Lima later this month without the funds.
Analysts said the $2.5bn figure under discussion before the Brisbane summit was just about enough to demonstrate that the US was willing to put up the cash.
"I think it's a good signal for unlocking the negotiations for Paris in 2015," said Alex Doukas, an international climate policy analyst at the World Resources Institute. Congress will still have to authorise the funds. But some analysts argue that it will be difficult for Republicans to cut out climate finance entirely.
The pledge from Obama could also help spur Britain and other countries to pay into a fund that so far has raised just under $3bn, well short of its initial $10bn target.
Jake Schmidt, who follows international climate negotiations for the Natural Resources Defence Council, said: "He is trying to use the G20 as a way to put pressure bilaterally and otherwise for countries to put their targets and their financing on the table."
There were early signs the strategy was paying off. The Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, was expected to announce a pledge of up to $1.5bn to the fund at the Brisbane summit, press reports said.
The financial commitments from the US and Japan are in strong contrast with Canada's and Australia's positions, which have said they will not contribute to the climate fund.
Indeed the announcement could again embarrass the G20 host country, Australia, which has been fiercely resisting climate change discussions distracting from its desired focus on "economic growth and jobs".
The Australian government was caught off guard when Obama and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping unveiled climate pledges on the eve of the summit.
As revealed by Guardian Australia, Australia has been arguing against behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts for G20 leaders to promise to make contributions to the fund.
The prime minister, Tony Abbott, had previously insisted Australia would not make any contributions to it, although it is understood the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which leads Australia's negotiating position in international climate talks, has been considering whether Canberra should make a pledge. Sources said no final decision had been made.
Asked about the fund before last year's UN climate meeting in Warsaw, the prime minister said: "We're not going to be making any contributions to that." It was reported that at one of its first cabinet meetings the Abbott government decided it would make no contributions to the fund that was described as "socialism masquerading as environmentalism".
Abbott disparaged the fund at the time, comparing it to a domestic fund championed by the former Greens leader Bob Brown, which he wants to abolish.
He told the Australian newspaper: "One thing the current government will never do is say one thing at home and a different thing abroad. We are committed to dismantling the Bob Brown bank [the Clean Energy Finance Corporation] at home so it would be impossible for us to support a Bob Brown bank on an international scale."
The government also pointedly dissented from support for the fund in a communique from last November's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting - a stance backed by Canada.
The Green Climate Fund aims to help poorer countries cut their emissions and prepare for the impact of climate change, and is seen as critical to securing developing-nation support for a successful deal on reducing emissions at the UN meeting in Paris next year.
More than $2.8bn had been pledged before the US commitment - including $1bn by France and almost $1bn by Germany. More pledges are expected at a special "pledging" conference in Berlin on 20 November. Britain has said it will make a "strong" contribution at that meeting.
Federal ministers raised strong objections to Australia's commitment to the Green Climate Fund during the cabinet discussion before Warsaw, a meeting to which Australia controversially declined to send the environment minister, Greg Hunt, or any ministerial representative. (Foreign minister Julie Bishop will be attending this year's meeting in Lima.)
In opposition Bishop raised strong concerns that money from the foreign aid budget was being directed towards the climate change fund. "Climate change funding should not be disguised as foreign aid funding," she said, accusing the former government of introducing the now-repealed carbon tax to pay for contributions to the fund.
"This is a tax to gather revenue to redistribute it around the economy and to buy themselves some brownie points at the United Nations," she said in 2011.
A showdown over the Green Climate Fund had been looming for next week, when a pledging conference was scheduled in Berlin.
However, it appears that Obama wanted to get out ahead of other countries - and focus the attention of G20 countries more firmly on climate change.
"He is seizing the opportunities that come his way to demonstrate to the world that the US is not going to backtrack on the progress he has made for the last five years, and that he is firmly committed to getting a strong deal in Paris," said Pete Ogden, a former White House adviser who is now the international climate and energy director at the Centre for American Progress.
"I think this is certainly about him showing that he is making no apologies for helping to build up an effective domestic climate policy and he is making no apologies for wanting to help lead global efforts to combat climate change. People around the world look at us and see what happened in the mid-terms. If they had any reason for concern that he would be diminished, I think the evidence of the last couple of days is going to put that to rest."
Heather Coleman, a climate analyst at Oxfam, said the US-China deal earlier in the week had helped lay the groundwork for Obama to offer a pledge on climate finance.
"Now that we have demonstrated that China is willing to move forward it does make it more palatable for the US to put more money on the table for international climate finance which everyone knows is the essential key to unlocking negotiations. Without finance you just don't get a global climate deal," she said.
The ballpark figure of $2.5bn to $3bn is not that much higher than the $2bn pledged to climate finance by George Bush in 2008.
"Ultimately this is money that will be appropriate by Congress, but the fact is for decades Congress has been investing in multilateral funds that support the efforts of countries to cut emissions and build cleaner economies," Ogden said.
Additional reporting by Lenore Taylor, Guardian Australia political editor
LOAD-DATE: November 14, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
324 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 14, 2014 Friday 7:46 AM GMT
G20 summit: Obama to pledge at least $2.5bn to help poor countries on climate change;
Exclusive: Green Climate Fund commitment to be unveiled as leaders gather for G20 summit in hope of spurring others to stump up cash in a move likely to embarrass the host nation, Australia
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1246 words
Barack Obama will make a substantial pledge to a fund to help poor countries fight climate change, only days after his historic carbon pollution deal with China.
In a one-two punch, America plans to pledge at least $2.5bn and as much as $3bn over the next four years to help poor countries invest in clean energy and cope with rising seas and extreme weather, according to those briefed by administration officials.
The financial commitment will be unveiled as world leaders gather for the G20 summit in Brisbane, sending a powerful signal of Obama's determination to act on climate change despite the Republican takeover of Congress in mid-term elections.
The pledge to the Green Climate Fund was seen as critical to UN negotiations for a global climate deal. Developing countries have said they cannot sign on to emissions cuts at climate talks in Lima later this month without the funds.
Analysts said the $2.5bn figure under discussion before the Brisbane summit was just about enough to demonstrate that the US was willing to put up the cash.
"I think it's a good signal for unlocking the negotiations for Paris in 2015," said Alex Doukas, an international climate policy analyst at the World Resources Institute. Congress will still have to authorise the funds. But some analysts argue that it will be difficult for Republicans to cut out climate finance entirely.
The pledge from Obama could also help spur Britain and other countries to pay into a fund that so far has raised just under $3bn, well short of its initial $10bn target.
Jake Schmidt, who follows international climate negotiations for the Natural Resources Defence Council, said: "He is trying to use the G20 as a way to put pressure bilaterally and otherwise for countries to put their targets and their financing on the table."
There were early signs the strategy was paying off. The Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, was expected to announce a pledge of up to $1.5bn to the fund at the Brisbane summit, press reports said.
The financial commitments from the US and Japan are in strong contrast with Canada's and Australia's positions, which have said they will not contribute to the climate fund.
Indeed the announcement could again embarrass the G20 host country, Australia, which has been fiercely resisting climate change discussions distracting from its desired focus on "economic growth and jobs".
The Australian government was caught off guard when Obama and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping unveiled climate pledges on the eve of the summit.
As revealed by Guardian Australia, Australia has been arguing against behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts for G20 leaders to promise to make contributions to the fund.
The prime minister, Tony Abbott, had previously insisted Australia would not make any contributions to it, although it is understood the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which leads Australia's negotiating position in international climate talks, has been considering whether Canberra should make a pledge. Sources said no final decision had been made.
Asked about the fund before last year's UN climate meeting in Warsaw, the prime minister said: "We're not going to be making any contributions to that." It was reported that at one of its first cabinet meetings the Abbott government decided it would make no contributions to the fund that was described as "socialism masquerading as environmentalism".
Abbott disparaged the fund at the time, comparing it to a domestic fund championed by the former Greens leader Bob Brown, which he wants to abolish.
He told the Australian newspaper: "One thing the current government will never do is say one thing at home and a different thing abroad. We are committed to dismantling the Bob Brown bank [the Clean Energy Finance Corporation] at home so it would be impossible for us to support a Bob Brown bank on an international scale."
The government also pointedly dissented from support for the fund in a communique from last November's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting - a stance backed by Canada.
The Green Climate Fund aims to help poorer countries cut their emissions and prepare for the impact of climate change, and is seen as critical to securing developing-nation support for a successful deal on reducing emissions at the UN meeting in Paris next year.
More than $2.8bn had been pledged before the US commitment - including $1bn by France and almost $1bn by Germany. More pledges are expected at a special "pledging" conference in Berlin on 20 November. Britain has said it will make a "strong" contribution at that meeting.
Federal ministers raised strong objections to Australia's commitment to the Green Climate Fund during the cabinet discussion before Warsaw, a meeting to which Australia controversially declined to send the environment minister, Greg Hunt, or any ministerial representative. (Foreign minister Julie Bishop will be attending this year's meeting in Lima.)
In opposition Bishop raised strong concerns that money from the foreign aid budget was being directed towards the climate change fund. "Climate change funding should not be disguised as foreign aid funding," she said, accusing the former government of introducing the now-repealed carbon tax to pay for contributions to the fund.
"This is a tax to gather revenue to redistribute it around the economy and to buy themselves some brownie points at the United Nations," she said in 2011.
A showdown over the Green Climate Fund had been looming for next week, when a pledging conference was scheduled in Berlin.
However, it appears that Obama wanted to get out ahead of other countries - and focus the attention of G20 countries more firmly on climate change.
"He is seizing the opportunities that come his way to demonstrate to the world that the US is not going to backtrack on the progress he has made for the last five years, and that he is firmly committed to getting a strong deal in Paris," said Pete Ogden, a former White House adviser who is now the international climate and energy director at the Centre for American Progress.
"I think this is certainly about him showing that he is making no apologies for helping to build up an effective domestic climate policy and he is making no apologies for wanting to help lead global efforts to combat climate change. People around the world look at us and see what happened in the mid-terms. If they had any reason for concern that he would be diminished, I think the evidence of the last couple of days is going to put that to rest."
Heather Coleman, a climate analyst at Oxfam, said the US-China deal earlier in the week had helped lay the groundwork for Obama to offer a pledge on climate finance.
"Now that we have demonstrated that China is willing to move forward it does make it more palatable for the US to put more money on the table for international climate finance which everyone knows is the essential key to unlocking negotiations. Without finance you just don't get a global climate deal," she said.
The ballpark figure of $2.5bn to $3bn is not that much higher than the $2bn pledged to climate finance by George Bush in 2008.
"Ultimately this is money that will be appropriate by Congress, but the fact is for decades Congress has been investing in multilateral funds that support the efforts of countries to cut emissions and build cleaner economies," Ogden said.
Additional reporting by Lenore Taylor, Guardian Australia political editor
LOAD-DATE: November 14, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
325 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 14, 2014 Friday 6:38 AM GMT
block-time published-time 5.36pm AEST Night;
British prime minister outlines plans to counter extremists, warns against protectionism, describes new threat of 'authoritarian capitalism' and says Britain's economy has turned a corner in his speech to a special sitting of parliament in Canberra. As it happened.
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 9343 words
block-time published-time 5.36pm AEST
Night time political summary
The day was dominated by world leaders arriving in Australia for the G20, which is being hosted by the Australian government in Brisbane. The whole show is costing $450m and it appears to have shut down Brisbane for the locals but the world leaders continue to stream in on their jets. The major news stories for the day:
The US has pledged $2.5bn to the Green Climate Fund, to help poor countries fight climate change. Last year, Tony Abbott maintained Australia would never contribute to the fund which he called "socialism masquerading as environmentalism".
British prime minister David Cameron addressed the Australian parliament, outlining his countries anti-terror laws, highlighting the importance of maintaining democratic values and fighting the extremist narrative.
Cameron said countries should resist protectionist urges and he called on leaders to push through an EU-US trade agreement, and also an Australia-EU agreement. Cameron laid a wreath at the Australian War Memorial.
Bill Shorten has called on Tony Abbott to place climate change, global trade, youth unemployment and inclusive growth on the G20 agenda.
Christine Milne said the failure of both Tony Abbott and David Cameron to mention climate change in their speeches to parliament was the "elephant in the room". Bill Shorten did not mention it either.
A spokesman for the Russian president Vladimir Putin, who is due to arrive in Australia at 9pm Friday, said the Russian ships were heading south for research purposes, as well as the "peace and stability of Russia and the world".
block-time published-time 5.24pm AEST
Tony Abbott and David Cameron have arrived together in Brisbane, on what appears to be blustery hot conditions.
block-time published-time 5.21pm AEST
Indonesian president. Tick.
President of Indonesia Joko Widodo walks with Governor-General of Australia Sir Peter Cosgrove after his arrival in Brisbane. Photograph: Steve Holland/AP
block-time published-time 5.20pm AEST
Protestors called for an end to black deaths in custody.
Aboriginal protestors march in Brisbane. Photograph: DAVE HUNT/AAPIMAGE
block-time published-time 5.17pm AEST
Tony Abbott has arrived in Brisbane for the G20.
block-time published-time 5.13pm AEST
A report from Joshua Robertson on the Aboriginal protests outside the G20:
World leaders at the G20 are meeting a stone's throw from the most significant ancient meeting place of the Aboriginal nations of Brisbane, what is now Musgrave park.
The irony that most locals aren't even aware of the park's cultural significance is not lost on Brisbane Aboriginal sovereign embassy (Base) youth representative Boe Spearim.
"Through all forms of educational institution in this country, they do not teach about the traditions of this country, they do not teach local history," he told Guardian Australia.
"This is Jagera land, across the river's Turrbal, towards Beaudesert is Mundjaling. So within this small region of Brisbane, there are three large Aboriginal nations who have occupied these lands for so long. That's not taught. The real stories of the stolen generation are not told. The way Australia acquired this country is never told.
Base led the day's largest protest - a 300-person march to to acknowledge the 360 indigenous Australians "murdered in custody, whether it's in a jail cell or in the back of a paddy wagon or on the streets".
Spearim said racism started young, with those attitudes too entrenched by the time people had grown up and joined institutions like correctional services or the police.
"If we can teach these young non-Aboriginal children at a young age about the true history and give them a true understanding of who Aboriginal people are and why we are in the positions we are at the moment - why Aboriginal people drink and do drugs - that's because of the trans-generational trauma that Aboriginal people have had to endure over the last 240 years without justice or compensation. That just shows you the resilience of Aboriginal people as a whole, that we can get up and march with a hop and a skip and a smile on our face after 200 years of bloodshed and dispossession."
block-time published-time 5.02pm AEST
The protests are underway. Here are a couple of videos from the ever present video star Bill Code. Here is Oxfam highlighting inequality for the G20 leaders...
And this is People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, saying there is no such thing as a meat-eating environmentalist. Which may be news for some....
block-time published-time 4.48pm AEST
From Ben Doherty, our man on the spot.
Indian prime minister Narendra Modi with agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce. Photograph: Ben Doherty/Guardian Australia
Modi is in there somewhere...
Indian prime minister Narendra Modi visits Queensland University of Technology. Photograph: Ben Doherty/Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 4.23pm AEST
Turkish prime minister. Tick.
Turkish Prime minister Ahmet Davutoglu speaks at the Griffith University G20 summit. Photograph: LUKAS COCH/AAPIMAGE
block-time published-time 4.21pm AEST
South Korean president. Tick.
South Korea's president Park Geun-hye on her arrival in Brisbane for the G20 Summit. Photograph: PATRICK HAMILTON/AFP/Getty Images
block-time published-time 4.20pm AEST
Japanese president. Tick.
Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe on arrival in Brisbane for the G20 Summit. Photograph: PATRICK HAMILTON/AFP/Getty Images
block-time published-time 4.18pm AEST
Mexican president. Tick.
Mexico's President Enrique Pena Nieto and First Lady Angelica Rivera Hurtado upon their arrival in Brisbane for the G20 Summit. Photograph: PATRICK HAMILTON/AFP/Getty Images
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.20pm AEST
block-time published-time 4.12pm AEST
Faced with the news earlier that the Russian ships were here to research climate change, Shalailah Medhora did her best to track down a Russian spokesman to check if AAP could possibly be correct.
A spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin clarified reports that Russian naval ships are in international waters near Australia to undertake climate research. He says the boats have a number of goals, including maritime and Antarctic research.
They are here for the peace and stability of Russia and the world.
block-time published-time 4.10pm AEST
The G20 centre in Brisbane is in gridlock as leaders and associated staff converge. I can sense the sigh in the voice of my colleague Daniel Hurst.
Irony. #G20 press conference scheduled for now is delayed because one of the speakers is caught in traffic
- Daniel Hurst (@danielhurstbne) November 14, 2014
block-time published-time 4.00pm AEST
Senator Scott Ludlam appreciating First Dog.
what even is the #G20 - http://t.co/TebJMiBath@firstdogonmoon dogue is on point today
- Scott Ludlam (@SenatorLudlam) November 14, 2014
block-time published-time 3.54pm AEST
The Green Climate Fund was the thing that the Abbott government really did not want anything to do with. Also from Suzanne and Lenore Taylor's report:
As revealed by Guardian Australia, Australia has been arguing against behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts for G20 leaders to promise to make contributions to the fund.
The prime minister, Tony Abbott, had previously insisted Australia would not make any contributions to it, although it is understood the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which leads Australia's negotiating position in international climate talks, has been considering whether Canberra should make a pledge. Sources said no final decision had been made.
Asked about the fund before last year's UN climate meeting in Warsaw, the prime minister said: "We're not going to be making any contributions to that." It was reported that at one of its first cabinet meetings the Abbott government decided it would make no contributions to the fund that was described as "socialism masquerading as environmentalism".
Abbott disparaged the fund at the time, comparing it to a domestic fund championed by the former Greens leader Bob Brown, which he wants to abolish.
He told the Australian newspaper: "One thing the current government will never do is say one thing at home and a different thing abroad. We are committed to dismantling the Bob Brown bank [the Clean Energy Finance Corporation] at home so it would be impossible for us to support a Bob Brown bank on an international scale."
block-time published-time 3.50pm AEST
US pledges $2.5bn to Green Climate Fund
Suzanne Goldenberg and Lenore Taylor reports :
Barack Obama will make a substantial pledge to a fund to help poor countries fight climate change, only days after his historic carbon pollution deal with China.
In a one-two punch, America plans to pledge at least $2.5bn and as much as $3bn over the next four years to help poor countries invest in clean energy and cope with rising seas and extreme weather, according to those briefed by administration officials.
The financial commitment will be unveiled as world leaders gather for the G20 summit in Brisbane, sending a powerful signal of Obama's determination to act on climate change despite the Republican takeover of Congress in mid-term elections.
The pledge to the Green Climate Fund was seen as critical to UN negotiations for a global climate deal. Developing countries have said they cannot sign on to emissions cuts at climate talks in Lima later this month without the funds.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 3.54pm AEST
block-time published-time 3.44pm AEST
Greens senator Rachel Siewert has taken issue with Tony Abbott's earlier comments (see the 9.27am post) about the state of Australia when the First Fleet arrived. Siewart says Abbott keeps sending mixed messages about European settlement.
The Prime Minister's 'nothing but bush' comments once again ignore the fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have been in Australia for many tens of thousands of years, and that British settlement began a process of discrimination and dispossession.
This is another example of the Prime Minister ignoring the reality of colonisation and the peoples, flourishing culture, languages that were here at the time of European settlement.
block-time published-time 3.36pm AEST
Brisbane Lord Mayor Graham Quirk has held a press conference with a little practical advice for leaders and punters alike, given the weather - along with China and the United States - is conspiring to push climate change onto the G20 agenda.
Q: Lord Mayor, there's forecasts of 39 degree heat on Sunday. Do you have any advice for international visitors about how to cope, how Brisbane people cope, with that sort of heat? Should they go to the beach early in the morning on the Sunday or something?
Lord Mayor Quirk : Well, we have a saying here, which is "slip, slop, slap" and it is about slipping on a hat. But for those of you who haven't bought a hat, I notice that in the welcoming packs out there, that there is an umbrella. So whether it is rainy conditions or pretty hot conditions out there, then umbrellas are there for people's use. And also a cap. So people ought to take up that opportunity.
Meanwhile, AAP reports Queensland water police are investigating the cause of peculiar bubbles in the Brisbane River within the declared G20 zone. Divers and police boats were at the scene near the Queensland Performing Arts Centre at South Bank on Friday afternoon.
Water police are checking to see what the source of the bubbles are, but it's not believed to be suspicious at this stage, a police spokesman said.
SUSPICIOUS BUBBLING PEOPLE THERE IS SUSPICIOUS BUBBLING THERE ARE BUBBLES IN A RIVER MAKE THEM STOP. http://t.co/aAYQq3w91s
- Stilgherrian (@stilgherrian) November 14, 2014
block-time published-time 3.19pm AEST
Karen Middleton of SBS caught the C20.
Civil society NGO reps call for fairness in #G20 growth strategies & discussion on climate change, youth, women pic.twitter.com/likay6i15z
- Karen Middleton (@KarenMMiddleton) November 14, 2014
block-time published-time 3.16pm AEST
I think Vladamir Putin is trolling Tony Abbott.
The Russian embassy gives an explanation in an AAP story:
RUSSIA has for the first time explained the presence of a fleet of warships off north-eastern Australia, saying that the ships are testing their range capability, in case they have to do climate change research in the Antarctic.
The Russian embassy also said the fleet could, if necessary, provide security for Russian President Vladimir Putin, who arrives in Brisbane for the G20 tonight.
block-time published-time 2.56pm AEST
Namaste: Indian PM Narendra Modi.
The diplomatic rockstar of the G20, Indian prime minister Narendra Modi arrived in Brisbane on Friday for the G20 summit, the first Indian PM to visit Australia since Rajiv Gandhi in 1986. Modi, as a new PM, is the man everyone wants to see at this meeting.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrives at Brisbane Airport to attend the G20 Leader's Summit. Photograph: GREG WOOD/AFP/Getty Images
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 2.57pm AEST
block-time published-time 2.47pm AEST
Here is another bit of video for you showing the real Brisbane. Guardian's correspondent Josh Robertson has been very busy.
There are two points to note with this video.
1. Which archbishop got a tattoo?
2. What a terrible organisation we are, here at the Guardian.
block-time published-time 2.41pm AEST
Costello blames rich countries for ebola outbreak
Guardian's Ben Doherty has been at the C20 summit.
Tim Costello, chief executive of World Vision Australia, and chair of the C20, has blamed the world's richest countries for the latest outbreak of Ebola being so deadly.
So far, the current outbreak has killed 5000 people.
Ebola: profound government and market failure. Why wasn't there research into Ebola, it's because we said 'it only breaks out in Africa, and it's patchy, and they don't have a big market because they're poor'. That's why we don't have a vaccine, that's why we don't have a treatment, it's because it didn't affect us. It's a profound government/market failure, because suddenly Ebola's reaching us and we're scrambling. The G20 must have fairness for people who are the poorest.
block-time published-time 2.34pm AEST
The British PM and The Brick.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron meets PUP senator Glenn Lazarus, with Bill Shorten, Sam Dastyari and Dio Wang. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 2.31pm AEST
The C20 is the group representing domestic and international non government organisations and individuals who in social services, environment, women, Indigenous, multicultural and human rights organisations.
Kind of everyone else apart from governments and business.
They are having a press conference now about what they want from the G20.
The c20 has made 18 interrelated recommendations across the areas of inclusive growth and employment, infrastructure, climate change and resource sustainability and governance, including importantly, international taxation reform and transparency.
Chair of the C20, Tim Costello, says civil society has a right to be involved and is now finally embedded in the G20 process - given business has long been involved. He said the G20 cannot talk about growth without working out ways for the (income) growth to flow down to the bottom 20% households of the G20 countries.
It's essentially about people and the high financial and economic architecture which is incomprehensible to most people in G20 nations dramatically affects their lives. Or the non-decisions, if we don't get outcomes, affects their lives also.
The fact that business has always been a significant player at the G20 and we know with governments being broke they're essentially saying to business "Tell us what red tape you want us to cut and deregulation you need so we can get you investing".
block-time published-time 2.16pm AEST
British Prime Minister David Cameron places a poppy in the roll of honour wall as Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott watches. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 2.15pm AEST
British prime minister David Cameron with Australian prime minister Tony Abbott at the roll of honour at the Australian War Memorial. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 2.01pm AEST
Our Brisbane correspondent Josh Robertson reports from Brisbane:
The Australia Tibet Council chose to unfurl its protest against China's human rights record outside Brisbane's controlled security zone for G20 - but still managed to attract a flicker of interest from police.
The activists invited media to a cliff top, riverside park in New Farm this morning to make their point: G20 nations should unite to confront China, which seems to deflect concerns on Tibet whenever the matter is raised one on one.
"In all these bilateral engagements, China seems to have the upper hand, using empty threats of economic and diplomatic penalties, they're able to easily shut down any criticism of Tibet and human rights," the council's Kyinzom Dhongdue said.
Dhongdue said Tibetan hopes that new Chinese president Xi Jinping would be a progressive influence had been dashed, with moves to "criminalise" those activists who burned themselves in protest, who number some 133 under Jinping's watch.
Dhongdue said survivors had been charged as terrorists and their families threatened and spied on.
"It's a vicious cycle of repression and resistence," she said
"To address the human rights crisis in Tibet, governments must come together and stand up to China."
A police car watched the demonstration from a distance but did not intervene.
block-time published-time 1.55pm AEST
I know you love a shirtfront joke so here it is. Entering the international diplomatic lexicon.
block-time published-time 1.52pm AEST
Lunchtime political wrap
British prime minister David Cameron has addressed the Australian parliament, outlining his countries anti-terror laws, highlighting the importance of maintaining democratic values and fighting the extremist narrative. He said countries should resist protectionist urges and he called on leaders to push through an EU-US trade agreement, and also an Australia-EU agreement. Cameron laid a wreath at the Australian War Memorial.
Bill Shorten has called on Tony Abbott to place climate change, global trade, youth unemployment and inclusive growth on the G20 agenda.
Christine Milne said the failure of both Tony Abbott and David Cameron to mention climate change in their speeches to parliament was the "elephant in the room". Bill Shorten did not mention it either.
Now the leaders will be preparing to head to Brisbane for the G20.
block-time published-time 1.40pm AEST
For a news story on the events of this morning, here is Lenore Taylor :
British prime minister David Cameron has linked controversial new foreign fighter and anti-terrorism laws in both Britain and Australia with the common values of freedom and democracy he cited as the "bedrock" of both societies.
In a speech to the Australian parliament, Cameron said the root cause of extremism was not poverty or social exclusion or foreign policy but rather the "extremist narrative" which had to be "rooted out", including by government actions to remove extremist material from the internet.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.40pm AEST
block-time published-time 1.38pm AEST
Milne was asked about David Cameron's comments about the US-China deal, in which he reacted cautiously about the emissions targets because the detail had not been released.
Milne said the US-China deal was the opening round ahead of the UN Paris climate summit and warned Australia would be left behind.
This is significant because it means that China has moved. The United States has moved. It leaves countries like Australia out in the cold. Wrong side of history. And what it signals is that the business of the planet is going to be on low carbon economies. New technology. Innovation. Encouraging entrepreneurial skills. Investment in research. This is where Australia is going to miss out really badly. You know the last thing I want to see isAustralia's best and brightest leave Australia and go overseas because that's where the action is on addressing global warming. Tony Abbott cannot absolutely condemn Australia to being the quarry.
block-time published-time 1.33pm AEST
Christine Milne laughs off the possibility of an European Union-Australian trade deal.
David Cameron first of all has to tell us whether he's even committed to staying in the EU, all the talk from the Tories in the UK has been in response to the UK Independence Party trying to make the case for why the EU isn't so great for Britain. And yet he comes out here to Australia and talks up the potential of an EU/Australia free trade agreement.
block-time published-time 1.28pm AEST
Here is what David Cameron said about trade deals, specifically regarding the EU-US and the EU-Australia.
Let's start this weekend at the G20 and take these arguments head on. Let's see through a EU-US deal that could be the biggest of its kind on the planet.
And while we are at it, let's push for an EU-Australia deal too.
Because if we have the confidence to stay true to our values, we can defeat
the protectionist arguments and secure huge advances in prosperity.
For our nations and for our trading partners all around the world.
block-time published-time 1.26pm AEST
Greens leader Christine Milne is speaking about the huge elephant in the room.
Global warming.
The fact that you could have prime minister Cameron and prime minister Abbott both making their speeches today and no mention of global warming just shows you how out of touch Australia is. Prime Minister Abbott is not going to be able to get pay way with that at the G20. We are living in a global emergency. We have a situation where both China and the US and the EU have now all moved significantly on global warming, and here we have an Australian prime minister who loves coal, wants to stay in last century and be on thewrong side of history.
block-time published-time 1.23pm AEST
The latest boy band...
Good to host @TonyAbbottMHR & @David_Cameron in #Sydney today to discuss the value of investing in infrastructure pic.twitter.com/hlOfvaysfB
- Mike Baird (@mikebairdMP) November 14, 2014
I just want to see them clicking their fingers in unison.
block-time published-time 1.19pm AEST
David Cameron is laying a wreath in the hall of memory at the Australian War Memorial to honour the Unknown Soldier.
block-time published-time 1.18pm AEST
David Cameron addressing the chamber.
David Cameron in the chamber. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia UK Prime Minister David Cameron examines the opposition dispatch box. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 1.07pm AEST
The last question is again to David Cameron on his anti-terror laws, particularly the power to take away British passports from people fighting overseas. The questions are around leaving British citizens effectively stateless. The British journalist also makes the point that even the Australian government has not done that. Our reputation precedes us, apparently. This from Cameron :
Successive governments have come to the view - and I agree with the view - that when you're facing an existential challenge as great as the one we face with Islamist extremists, you need additional powers as well as simply the criminal law. That's why we have these powers to take away someone's passport before they travel, to ban someone from travelling and that's why we've added this additional power to temporarily exclude someone from coming back into the UK, because we believe you need an additional set of powers in order to keep the country safe over and above what the criminal law allows.
Murray and Eric Maxton from Albany in WA who flew in the same Lancaster bomber during WWII meet UK Prime Minister David Cameron, Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull in parliament. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
Happily, Murray and Eric Maxton obviously made it to David Cameron's address. The brothers were invited from Western Australia for the event but there was no air ticket in the invitation.
block-time published-time 12.56pm AEST
Second question on whether Britain's terror laws will maroon British citizens overseas.
Cameron says it is his duty to keep British people safe while Abbott echoes his comments.
Third question on Russia's increasing military assertiveness.
Cameron :
Russian action in Ukraine is unacceptable. We have to be clear about what we're dealing with here. It is a large state bullying a smaller state in Europe and we've seen the consequences of that in the past and we should learn the lessons of history and make sure we don't let it happen again. I don't believe there's a military solution to this, but I think the sanctions are important.
Abbott :
The last thing I ever imagined 12 months or so back was I would be standing at this podium talking about Russian assertiveness and aggression.
Abbott says Russia's involvement in the Mhl disaster through Russian-backed rebels and calls on Russia to:
come clean and atone.
Then we are back to the Tsar.
Interestingly, Russia's economy is declining even as Russia's assertiveness is increasing and one of the points I tried to make to Putin is that Russia would be so much more attractive if it was aspiring to be a superpower for peace and freedom and prosperity, if it was trying to be a superpower for ideas and for values instead of trying to recreate the lost glories of tsarism or the old Soviet Union.
block-time published-time 12.48pm AEST
First question is on climate change and the China-US agreement.
Cameron says he is waiting to see the details of the agreement but he believes all countries should be taking action on climate change.
Abbott says he welcomes the US China deal, given they are the biggest emitters.
China emits some 24% of global carbon dioxide. The United States emits some 15% of global carbon dioxide by contrast. Australia's about 1%, so I think it's important that they do get cracking when it comes to this. I'm very proud of the fact that at the same time as we got rid of the carbon tax which was damaging our economy without helping the environment, we've put in place our direct action policy and I am absolutely confident that our Direct Action policy will deliver our 5% cut on 2000 levels by 2020.
block-time published-time 12.44pm AEST
David Cameron says Britain is growing at 3% a year, and is happy that the G20 should boost growth.
I think you're also right to highlight the importance of free trade and the dangers of protectionism. The other things I'll be hoping to put on the G20 agenda are obviously the continuing issue of making sure we have better tax cooperation between countries so that big companies pay the tax bills they should.
block-time published-time 12.42pm AEST
Tony Abbott lauds Britain's anti terror laws.
David Cameron said in his speech there will be new powers for police at ports to seize passports, to stop suspects travelling and to stop British nationals returning to the UK unless they do so on the government's terms. Therre will also be new rules to prevent airlines that don't comply with no-fly lists or security screening measures from landing in the UK.
block-time published-time 12.39pm AEST
David Cameron and Tony Abbott are in the prime minister's courtyard for a joint press conference.
Abbott says he appreciated Cameron's comments about economics, trade and security.
He looks forward to the G20 and says "you can't have prosperity without security".
block-time published-time 12.31pm AEST
Inspecting the troops.
British Prime Minister David Cameron at a ceremonial welcome on the forecourt of Parliament House. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 12.29pm AEST
Age shall not weary them.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron speaking to Australian veterans in parliament. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 12.26pm AEST
Shorten is asked about the Australia-Russian relationship.
All Australians know that Tony Abbott overreached when he had a brain snap and said he would shirt front Vladimir Putin. We heard the Prime Minister of England make a joke of the use of the word shirt front in his excellent address to theParliament. What really matters here is getting answers for the families of the victims of MH-17.
He says Russia should behave like a "good international citizen" and provide information to the Dutch investigation.
block-time published-time 12.23pm AEST
Bill Shorten :
If Australia wants to walk on the international stage, we can't pick and choose when we want to be international and when we want to be isolationist. We can't just talk about free trade without talking about tackling youth unemployment. We can't talk about security alone in northern Iraq and then ignore the challenge of Ebola in West Africa. We most certainly need to address climate change as the presidents of China and the United States have done so in such a dramatic fashion this week. Make no mistake, when Tony Abbott says he only wants to concentrate on economic issues what we see is a stubborn isolationist who won't admit climate change is an economic issue.
block-time published-time 12.21pm AEST
Bill Shorten is giving a press conference now. Shorten says Australia needs to be a nation of vision and confidence. He says the G20 is a test of leadership for Tony Abbott. He called on the prime minister to push:
climate change
inclusive growth
pushing global trade
and tackling youth unemployment.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.21pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.17pm AEST
Downer in the House.
Australian High Commissioner to the UK and former (Liberal) foreign minister Alexander Downer in the chamber. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 12.15pm AEST
Cameron is ushered into parliament.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron is led into the chamber by the Usher of the Black Rod. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 12.11pm AEST
"Strewth", said Cameron.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron in Parliament House. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
Trying a little Australian slang.
block-time published-time 12.09pm AEST
One more quote from Bill Shorten :
Today, the War Memorial salutes the memory of Australians who have served our nation in every conflict and peacekeeping operation. So often they have served, fought, fallen, side by side with British soldiers.
From the open veldt of South Africa, to the skies over Europe, most recently in the mountains of Afghanistan and the skies over Mesopotamia, our countries have forged an unbreakable bond of courage and sacrifice - of mutual respect and regard.
Their spirit, their bravery, their shared sense of duty and honour unites our countries in history forever.
block-time published-time 12.07pm AEST
Bill Shorten :
Britain has joined Europe and Australia has found our place in Asia. We sing our own anthems, we celebrate our own cultures.We enjoy a genuine exchange in education, art, music, cinema, literature and fashion.
And whether it is the Ashes, rugby, netball, the Olympics, the Paralympics or the Commonwealth games, we relish an international sporting rivalry as old as any on earth.
Our sledging can sometimes surprise the uninitiated - but it reflects the depth of our friendship - we can dish it out because we know we will get it back. We are both good losers - and fantastic winners.
block-time published-time 12.06pm AEST
Bill Shorten echoed a line of Tony Abbott's with a twist:
The deep and abiding friendship between our nations has evolved and matured. Australia no longer looks to Britain out of need, or dependence - we no longer seek to imitate, or echo. Instead we greet each other as equals and peers - as partners in the world.
block-time published-time 12.02pm AEST
Let me back track to Bill Shorten now with some funny historical anecdotes.
Prime Minister, the first of your predecessors to visit our country did so before Federation - and before he was even a Member of Parliament.
Lord Salisbury, the Conservative icon and one of the great architects of the Empire, visited the colonies as a young man in the 1850s.
Two observations from his lordships journal stand out:
One, his lordship reported there was " less crime than expected".
Two, his lordship reported that the " customary form of address was: mate''.
Just over a hundred years later, Harold MacMillan became the first Prime Minister to experience Australian hospitality whilst in office.
As he recalled:
As I drove into Sydney on my first arrival there, I was amazed to see the great numbers of people in the streets and issuing from all houses.
A huge crowd had turned out to welcome me, far greater, I thought, than any similar crowd could ever be in the old country, and I was deeply touched.
Then someone told me the truth. It was six o'clock ...[and the pubs were closing].
Prime Minister, you will be relieved to hear that the days of the six o'clock swill and early closing are long gone.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.03pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.58am AEST
David Cameron finishes with the point that democracies always seem combative, in a nod - I thought - to the disillusionment with modern politics in the first world.
Here in this Chamber and in the House of Commons back in Britain, we let the brickbats fly. We sometimes say some pretty rude things to each other. We trade insults and put-downs. Not everyone quite gets it.
His point was that for all our flaws and the barbs traded in modern political arena, the values that underpin those societies are strong.
Never forget that we live in countries where the press is free, the law is fair, the right to redress universally available, property rights universally enforceable, the freedom of speech the foundation of our democracy. And let's remember that these things - these incredible values we share - are not just what make our societies strong; they make our economies strong too.
block-time published-time 11.53am AEST
After outlining the anti-terror laws, David Cameron lauds a free press:
Our free and fearless press shines a light wherever it is needed, without fear or favour. Of course that can make life difficult - but it helps drive out the corruption that destroys so many countries. Our governments lose cases in court, because we don't control the courts. But that's why people invest in our countries because they have property rights, and they know that they can get redress from the rule of law and that we have judges who are honest and not on the make.
block-time published-time 11.52am AEST
David Cameron :
Finally, there's a more insipient creeping threat to our values that I want to mention. And it comes from those who say that we will be outcompeted and outgunned by countries that believe there is a short cut to success, a new model of authoritarian capitalism that is unencumbered by the values and restrictions we impose on ourselves. In particular, an approach that is free from the accountability of real democracy and the rule of law. I say: we should have the confidence to reject this view and stay true to our values.
block-time published-time 11.50am AEST
David Cameron warns against protectionism, saying it leads to more jobs and higher wages.
One of the greatest threats to our values and to our success is the spectre of protectionism. Too many people still seem to believe that trade is some sort of zero sum game.
block-time published-time 11.47am AEST
David Cameron :
As we confront this extremism together, let us have faith in the appeal of what our modern societies can offer. Yes, the battles for equality of opportunity for every person of every race and creed are not yet fully won but today your country and my country are places where people can take part, can have their say, can achieve their dreams, places where people feel free to say, "Yes, I'm a Muslim. I'm a Hindu, I'm a Christian but I'm also proud to be a Briton or an Australian too." And that sense of identity, that voice, that stake in society all come directly from standing up for values and our beliefs in open economies and open societies.
block-time published-time 11.45am AEST
Cameron talks about the British economy turning the corner and pays tribute to John Howard and Gough Whitlam.
He says Australia and Britain have always stood firm together because they share the same values.
He briefly outlines Britain's anti-terror laws, but then talks about how to address the root cause of terrorism, the extremist narrative.
As we do so, we must work with the overwhelming majority of Muslims who abhor the twisted narrative that has seduced some of our people. We must continue to celebrate Islam as a great world religion of peace.
He says the internet is presenting a challenge in the fight against the extremist narrative. He says government has a role to ensure it does not become an ungoverned space.
In the UK we are pushing (internet companies) to do more include strengthening filters, improving reporting mechanisms and being more proactive in taking down this harmful material.
block-time published-time 11.39am AEST
David Cameron thanks Australia for its help on ebola: "Typical Australia, always there with action not words."
But for a while our political relationship fell into a state of what William Hague called benign neglect. It's extraordinary to think that no British Foreign Secretary had visited Australia in nearly 20 years. I was determined to change that. Now you've had three visits in as many years and a British Prime Minister twice as well. You might start to think we're beginning to over-do it.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.58pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.36am AEST
Cameron talked about Australia's willingness to help on the world stage and cracks a shirtfront joke.
Only last month your Foreign Minister strode across the room towards me at a summit in Italy. I wondered for a moment whether I was heading for what I'm told we now need to call a shirtfronting.
block-time published-time 11.35am AEST
David Cameron acknowledges the traditional owners of the country. (Abbott did not. Shorten did).
Every chapter of Australia's story has been inspiring. I think of your Indigenous culture with roots stretching back millennia and I feel pride that Aboriginal Australians are now studying at Oxford and Cambridge and one of those scholars, Leila Smith, is here with us today.
block-time published-time 11.34am AEST
Cameron plays tribute to Australian diggers and recalls going to Anzac Cove as a younger man.
We will never forget the thousands of Australian troops who stoodand fought and fell from Lone Pine to the Somme. I especially think of those who fell in Gallipoli which I visited as a young man, surrounded by Aussies and Kiwis the same age as me. We joked as we took the boat across the Straits. But aswe landed and saw that extraordinary memorial, we all fell silent, moved beyond words by what our forefathers had done together.
block-time published-time 11.32am AEST
Cameron addresses Australian parliament.
David Cameron's address.
Coming here is like visiting family, says Cameron.
He also goes to the rivalry mentioned by Shorten.
There's our rivalries on and off the playing field, our fondness for teasing each other's habits and phrases, of course we Poms are known for our bluntness and we never really get your tendancy to beat around the bush and not say what you really mean. We have enormous affection for each other. We may live on opposite sides of the planet but it is hard to think of another country to which theBritish people feel so instinctively close.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.58pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.30am AEST
Bill Shorten is speaking now to echo the old friendship point and harks back to his ancestors. His is a more earthy speech, touching on the rivalry between the two countries but ultimately the unity between the two cultures.
I particularly want to pay a belated tribute to the British justice system because without your strong sentencing laws, some of my mother's Irish ancestors would never have come to Australia.
block-time published-time 11.27am AEST
Abbott finally quotes writer Clive James to note the integral part Britain has played in Australia's development.
He presents Australia and Britain as very close and similar nations.
After two centuries in which both of us have constantly adapted to our own changing and different circumstances, it's remarkable how similar we've become.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.57pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.24am AEST
Tony Abbott makes a regular point about Australia's place in Asia not diminishing the relationship with Britain.
Of course Australia is located in the Indo-Pacific but our place is wherever there is an interest to advance, a citizen to protect, a value to uphold or a friend to encourage. To a similar debate in Britain, Prime Minister Cameron has brought the same robust common sense. Britain is a European country with a global role. And like people, countries don't make new friends by losing old ones and they don't deepen some relationships by diminishing others.
block-time published-time 11.22am AEST
Abbott makes the point Australia and Britain are still fighting together in the war against Islamic State:
History matters because it helps us to know who we are and where we're going. It helps us to know what's important and who can be relied upon. It shapes us but it should never control us.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.59am AEST
block-time published-time 11.20am AEST
Tony Abbott remembers the Australian and British soldiers who died during wartime, fighting with each other. A number of veterans are in the chamber.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.57pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.19am AEST
Abbott:
And what would this world be if Britain had not settled the territory that Captain Cook earlier called NSW? Long ago, Madam Speaker, Australians ceased to regard Britain as the mother country but we are still family. The relationship between Britain and Australia has changed beyond recognition but it's still important and we still matter to each other.
block-time published-time 11.18am AEST
Abbott:
There is so much that Britain has given to us. There's so much, indeed, that Britain has given to everyone. Parliamentary democracy, the common law, constitutional monarchy, and English, the world's first or second language.
Abbot mentions Shakespeare, The Beatles, the advances of the first industrial revolution, and the determination of Churchill?
block-time published-time 11.16am AEST
Tony Abbott:
The first Christian sermon preached in this country took as its text "what shall I render unto the Lord for all his blessings towards me?" This indeed has always characterised us. Gratitude for what we have and a fierce determination to build on it. Modern Australia has an Aboriginal heritage, a British foundation and a multicultural character.
block-time published-time 11.15am AEST
Tony Abbott is welcoming David Cameron and giving a history lesson to build on the British-Australian relationship.
Of those on the First Fleet, the very best that could be said of them was that they had been chosen by the finest judges in England.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.56pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.14am AEST
So it's pretty squashy in parliament and the public galleries are full.
David Cameron is announced. The central chamber doors open and Cameron is introduced to the house and to applause and a standing ovation.
block-time published-time 11.11am AEST
The Speaker Bronwyn Bishop is on her feet, opening parliament.
block-time published-time 11.04am AEST
Here is a bit of smoke from the forecourt, via Karen Barlow of SBS.
Captured the moment one of those enormous guns fired out the front parliament! pic.twitter.com/g5xURYQWsT
- Karen Barlow (@KJBar) November 14, 2014
block-time published-time 11.01am AEST
From the Aboriginal deaths in custody protest in Brisbane:
Crowd swelled to about 300 at the Aboriginal deaths in custody protest at #G20Brisbanepic.twitter.com/L9WiB4qykE
- Mark Di Stefano (@MarkDiStef) November 13, 2014
block-time published-time 10.56am AEST
David Cameron's address is coming up as the independent legal observers arrive in Brisbane.
There are six "independent legal observers" in white singlets hovering on the outside of the #G20Brisbane protest pic.twitter.com/Hp7OnOHAUN
- Mark Di Stefano (@MarkDiStef) November 13, 2014
block-time published-time 10.52am AEST
Mark Di Stefano for Buzzfeed is tweeting from the G20 protests regarding Aboriginal deaths in custody.
At "Aboriginal deaths in custody" protest there about as many journalists as protestors at the moment #G20Brisbanepic.twitter.com/CoZOkdOPzB
- Mark Di Stefano (@MarkDiStef) November 13, 2014
block-time published-time 10.49am AEST
That's it for the welcome ceremony. David Cameron is in the House to sign the visitors' book. DC woz 'ere. There's a warm leaders' handshake for the cameras and then more official party stuff.
block-time published-time 10.47am AEST
Now the Australian anthem, Advance Australia Fair. You li'l beauty rich and rare.
block-time published-time 10.45am AEST
David Cameron is meeting the official party, including Speaker Bronwyn Bishop, Labor deputy leader Tanya Plibersek, Alexander Downer and others.
Now stand up for God Save the Queen please.
block-time published-time 10.42am AEST
David Cameron is now inspecting Australia's federation guard to a jaunty little tune, the kind you would hear as the troops were making merry in Guns of Navarone.
block-time published-time 10.37am AEST
David Cameron has arrived at parliament in a white car with a British flag on the front as the seagulls whirl through the forecourt over head. The guns are going, in their customary salute.
block-time published-time 10.35am AEST
Who wants to do fill in commentary? On ABC24, former advisor to Tony Blair, Nick Rowley is asked to explain the similarities between Cameron and Abbott.
Well...they are both men...
He did go on to make some very salient points, to be fair.
block-time published-time 10.33am AEST
Meanwhile, in Brisbane, the locals have vanished.
Friday morning, and parts of the #Brisbane CBD are a ghost town #G20#G20Brisbanepic.twitter.com/UPClMSwHfU
- Adam Todd (@_AdamTodd) November 13, 2014
block-time published-time 10.30am AEST
Tony Abbott has arrived in the parliamentary forecourt. He is now waiting for David Cameron, who is in a different car.
block-time published-time 10.26am AEST
The drums have started out the front. Australian flags are being waved, the anthem is played. A soldier is yelling very loudly.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.27am AEST
block-time published-time 10.26am AEST
Tony Abbott from this morning on the British-Australian relationship.
It's a relationship between, if not quite equals, certainly peers, and it is as warm as, as intimate, and as important as any relationship on this eTarth.
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and David Cameron. Photograph: DAN HIMBRECHTS/AAPIMAGE
He was discussing economic size.
block-time published-time 10.14am AEST
Former Australian Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser has some advice for his successor Tony Abbott.
Coal versus climate in Australia. Climate change must be discussed if meeting is to have relevance http://t.co/8YdQFA2zg3
- Malcolm Fraser (@MalcolmFraser12) November 12, 2014
block-time published-time 10.08am AEST
Tony Abbott was not to be outdone. He was talking up the prospects of foreign investment, notably British foreign investment.
We will give this country the muscle and the sinew that it needs to advance into the future and we will do it in partnership with investors from Britain and elsewhere. There is a long history of British investment in Australia. After the US, Britain is by far the biggest investor in this country. It's been a very steady consistent flow of British investment into this country ever since the very beginning of settlement here in 1788.
block-time published-time 10.06am AEST
Arrrr me hearties. David Cameron has found his buccaneering spirit. It wasn't only Tony Abbott spruiking his government's achievements.
No doubt after some difficult years Britain is back. Our economy is now the fastest growing of any G7 countries, we're going to do plus 3% this year. We've seen, since I've been PM, 2 million private sector jobs created, that is more jobs created than in the rest of the European Union put together. We've seen some real progress in our country. 400,000 more businesses operating in Britain and a sense that our economy is really on the move. Lots of challenges because we're in a neighbourhood that doesn't have a huge amount of growth and lots of things we need to crack but the British economy is back. We have refound that buccaneering trading spirit and we're linking ourselves up with all of the fastest growing parts of the world.
block-time published-time 10.02am AEST
While we are limbering up for David Cameron's arrival, you may like to do a primer on what the G20 hopes to achieve. Lenore Taylor has written a piece to get you up to speed on the hopes and dreams of the G20 and whether they will get there:
In 2008 when the global economy was in crisis, the G20 stepped up. But in the six years since it has become better known for the protests it attracts than the progress it has made on its central goals of promoting growth and strengthening international economic institutions.
So when the leaders meet again this weekend in Brisbane, Australia, they will be under pressure to achieve something tangible for the gathering to prove its relevance. But it is not at all clear that the "announceables" - the outcomes pre-negotiated by officials after a full year of meetings - will be sufficient to achieve that goal.
block-time published-time 9.56am AEST
Let's put this story under the theme, my gun is bigger than yours.
Brisbane's Courier Mail is reporting that another Australian ship has been sent to "intercept" the Russian fleet heading our way.
A third Australian warship has been dispatched to intercept a Russian flotilla steaming towards the G20 summit in Brisbane and a fourth navy vessel is ready to divert to the area. The replenishment ship HMAS Sirius is heading into the Coral Sea to support the frigates HMAS Parramatta and HMAS Stuart and the frigate HMAS Sydney is preparing to divert from an exercise in New Zealand to join the mission, according to a government source.
News' national defence writer Ian McPhedran "understands that the government also asked the Navy about the possibility of a Collins Class submarine joining the mission but was told that the nearest boat was in Perth and would not be able to reach the area until well after the G20 summit was over".
But there are anti-submarine warfare choppers on the Australian ships but don't panic. Defence sources said a Russian submarine is not likely to be in the area.
block-time published-time 9.45am AEST
Business is Gr8 Mate.
Talking to business leaders in Sydney about our long-term economic plan, which is helping the UK grow in tough times. pic.twitter.com/edbCJTqGKN
- David Cameron (@David_Cameron) November 13, 2014
block-time published-time 9.42am AEST
Summary of morning events for David Cameron
Here is a rundown, just in case you need to adjust your day for the events of the parliament.
David Cameron and Tony Abbott is about to arrive in Canberra, due at 10am.
There will be a ceremonial welcome in the forecourt of parliament at 10.30am and then he will sign the visitors book shortly before 11am. He will address the house at 11.10am, with the senators squashing in to the green benches. Then the two leaders will give a joint press conference before speeding off to the Australian War Memorial to lay a wreath.
block-time published-time 9.35am AEST
Head in the sand on climate change
As world leaders arrive at the G20 Summit in Brisbane, more than 400 people buried their heads in the sand at Bondi Beach in Sydney. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
Bowers was scouting around Sydney yesterday in preparation for the G20 and caught these people, 400 of them, protesting about Australia's stance on climate change. They buried their heads in the sand, bums in the air. With the surfboards, it seems a very Australian protest.
block-time published-time 9.27am AEST
After the walk, Tony Abbott and David Cameron had a business breakfast. The theme was infrastructure, in keeping with Abbott's election slogans, the infrastructure of the 21st century. Abbott showed his writerly tendencies in imagining what it was like for the First Fleet, fronting up in Sydney in 1788. The message was that Britain and Australia have had an "extraordinary partnership" since that first boat hit the harbour. (Lucky we didn't stop that one.) Abbott went on to provide a word picture of what those first boat people saw. At this point, you might want to shut your eyes, indigenous Australia.
As we look around this glorious city, as we see the extraordinary development, it's hard to think that back in 1788 it was nothing but bush, and that the marines and the convicts and the sailors that straggled off those 12 ships just a few hundred yards from where we are now must have thought they had come almost to the moon.
Everything would have been so strange. Everything would have seemed so extraordinarily basic and raw, and now a city which is one of the most spectacular cities on our globe, and in a country which is as free, as fair and as prosperous as any, a country which is in so many ways the envy of the Earth. So, it's great to be here with you, David, and I hope, as you pay your first visit to Sydney, and you think of what your countrymen did 200-odd years back, you do feel a measure of pride and satisfaction at what has been achieved here in that time.
Look, it's terrific to be talking about infrastructure.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 9.30am AEST
block-time published-time 9.09am AEST
Good morning politicos,
The guns are lined up on the parliamentary forecourt, Tony Abbott and David Cameron have taken a turn around the Sydney Opera House. There must be a big show on today. Yes, you guessed it, the G20 is in town.
The British prime minister, or rather one of his staffers, has kicked off the hoopla with this tweet from the PM2PM Power Walk. No doubting where he is.
With my friend @TonyAbbottMHR on a morning walk in Sydney. Later I'll address the Australian Parliament. pic.twitter.com/jc3iLhRi6u
- David Cameron (@David_Cameron) November 13, 2014
Stay with us for the day. Tony Abbott has already given a cracking speech reflecting on the Australia found by "the marines and sailors and convicts that straggled off those 12 ships". More of that, I promise.
I am ably assisted by Mike Bowers and please join the conversation below or on Twitter. I am @gabriellechan and he is @mpbowers. If the G20 crosses your world, be sure to employ your smartphone on social media and tag me. We will share your experiences but keep it clean people.
Onwards and upwards.
G20: British PM David Cameron addresses Australian parliament -as it happened British prime minister delivers speech to special sitting of parliament in Canberra false theguardian.com true http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/11/14/1415927538140/10b5d6b2-37d1-4e87-9fa3-a0cbdab91bc4-140x84.jpeg 8692 true 451859930 false 54652586e4b0867bcfaf64b4 false Gabrielle Chan false 2192564 AUS false 2014-11-17T09:15:00+11:00
LOAD-DATE: November 14, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
326 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 14, 2014 Friday 6:01 AM GMT
The right has won control of the English-speaking world - thanks to the weakness of the left;
Over the last three decades, leftwing parties in the English-speaking world have taken on much of the right's antidemocratic programme and lost their souls
BYLINE: Jason Wilson
SECTION: COMMENT IS FREE
LENGTH: 2894 words
Besides the 5-Eyes spying agreement, the English-speaking democracies of the North Atlantic and the South Pacific are frequently said to have a few things in common. British prime minister David Cameron recited them perfectly before the Australian parliament on Friday: "open economies and open societies", a free press, and "real democracy and the rule of law" safeguarded by liberal institutions.
These fantasies underpin the canonical history of what the rightwing calls the Anglosphere. Conservative thinktankers get misty-eyed when they hear speeches like these, which downplay the way in which these English traditions were imposed by settler colonists on countries stolen from their indigenous inhabitants. The Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, did just that in his introduction to Cameron's visit:
It's hard to think that back in 1788 [Sydney] was nothing but bush and that the marines and the convicts and sailors... must have thought they had come almost to the moon.
Right now the Anglosphere nations share another institution: everywhere, the political right is in charge, despite the times offering us reasons to vote for parties emphasising leftwing notions of environmental responsibility, equality, and military restraint.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has just reminded us again that the planet is frying beneath our feet. Economic inequality has widened in the Anglosphere over the last 30 years, and even more sharply in the last decade. In the "recovery" from the global financial crisis, in the UK and the US middle class incomes have declined, with the gains going to the very rich. In former welfare states like the UK, austerity policies are literally starving vulnerable citizens. Conservatives in other Anglosphere countries, like Australia's treasurer Joe Hockey, would dearly like to follow the Tories' example.
The only exemption to the defunding of public services are military and intelligence agencies - the air forces of Australia, Canada, the US and Britain are busy fighting in a new phase of the endless, profligate, unwinnable war in the Middle East. Over the course of this war, intelligence cooperation between the proud liberal democracies of the Anglosphere has evolved into what Edward Snowden has called a "supra-national intelligence organisation that doesn't answer to the laws of its own countries".
Despite all this, the right are enjoying a new heyday that puts the Thatcher and Reagan years in the shade. Australia is ruled by the most reactionary national government in its history. Stephen Harper, having first transformed Canadian conservatism into a simulacrum of the US Republican party, is now remodelling the country itself as a petro-state. In New Zealand, a scandal implicating prime minister John Key's staff in the smearing of political rivals did not prevent his National party government being returned in September. In the UK an austerity-mad Tory-led coalition government is drifting further right, as it (and Labour) dance to a tune set by the golf club bigots in Ukip. In the US, Republicans - who have spent the last four years obstructing Obama's painfully modest agenda - are now making conciliatory and cooperative noises because they are effectively the party of government, and are seeking to clear the way for their own agenda.
Each country has its own internal political dynamics. In each case the right has come to power in different ways. But these groupings share a lot of ideological common ground. This is no accident - multinational corporate lobbying, a global network of thinktanks, and the planetary echo chamber afforded by organisations like Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation keeps right wing ideas circulating and resonating throughout the English speaking world.
Anglosphere conservatives want to erode whatever remains of their respective welfare states, with a particular emphasis on wrecking social security, education and public health. They have profited by scapegoating immigrants or refugees, and stoking paranoia about border security. More so than in previous eras of rightwing ascendancy, they are joined at the hip to the carbon merchants whose products are worsening the climate disaster already under way. While Abbott waxes lyrical about the civilising properties of coal, Harper redesigns Canada's foreign policy around getting the products of its dirty oil sands industry to market. In the US, the Koch brothers and other carbon moguls bankroll the Republican party. If New Zealand and UK conservatives are less strident on this topic, it's because their carbon industries are nonexistent or were deliberately destroyed. Right now, they're all committed to the negotiation of a Trans -Pacific Partnership that economist Joseph Stiglitz says benefits "the wealthiest sliver of the American and global elite at the expense of everyone else".
The funny thing is that - with the exception of Key's relatively moderate government - all of these rightwing majorities are unpopular. Obama's approval ratings may be catastrophically low, but Congress's are even lower - the Republican takeover is based on the consistent support of a small, well-mobilised, conservative fraction of the electorate and the refusal of erstwhile Democrat supporters to turn out to vote. Since their failure to win a majority in their own right, the UK Tories - whose MPs are virtually all stationed in the countryside and comfy suburbs of England - have only declined in their standing. In Australia the Liberals' polling has been in an election-losing position almost since they came to government, and the electorate have resolutely disliked Abbott since before he assumed power. In Canada, Harper has been in negative electoral territory for well over a year.
Their ideas aren't well-liked, either. In Australia, the Abbott government has sustained most of the damage to its standing following the passage of a budget that the electorate correctly judged to be unfair to the most vulnerable. In the recent mid-terms, despite returning Republican candidates, US electorates passed a raft of progressive initiatives, including several mandating a rise in the local minimum wage, a couple making recreational marijuana legal, and even some mandating maximum class sizes in public schools.
Alaska, for example, returned a Republican senator and congressman at the same time that it legalised marijuana, voted for a minimum wage, and restricted mining to protect salmon refuges; a measure aimed at re-imposing taxes on oil companies only narrowly failed. In the UK, you could be forgiven for thinking from media coverage that immigration is the uppermost priority for voters. In fact, it's increasing funding to the NHS, which the Tories would like to eviscerate even more thoroughly than they have. In all of these countries, polling shows that the decline of public services, privatisation, and economic insecurity are perennial concerns for large swathes of their respective electorates.
The main reason the right finds itself in this position is not their own strength, or the broad acceptance of their ideas, but the weakness of mainstream leftwing parties. Partly this is down to a lack of effective political leadership. While Republicans ran against the president in the US midterms, so, often enough, did his Democrat colleagues. So desperate were they to avoid any association with him that some were led to refuse to admit that they had ever voted for him. Not only were candidates distancing themselves from what Jeb Lund called Obama's "one major legislative achievement", the Affordable Care Act, but they also gave only lukewarm support to the progressive ballot measures (and attendant social movements) that any sensible centre-left party might have viewed as a source of potential renewal. In the UK, Ed Miliband's personal unpopularity is equalling the records previously set by Lib-Dems leader Nick Clegg. In Australia, Labor leader Bill Shorten's bizarre communication style is good fodder for comedians, but perplexing for everybody else.
Leaders tend to look better when they are moving in a discernible direction. The real problem for centre-left parties in the Anglosphere is that it's very difficult to tell what their objectives are, and what, if anything, they stand for. (If any Australian can provide me with a succinct account of contemporary "Labor Values", I'm dying to hear it).
Having spent the last three decades chasing conservatives rightwards in pursuit of a mythical centre, it may be that politicians are as confused as voters are. Between them the social democratic governements of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair redefined progressive policy, seeking to effect social change through market-based, capital-friendly mechanisms. Capital showed precious little gratitude to them, and none to their successors. But the habit of trying to please everyone, including the vested interests who actually need to be confronted in order to bring about lasting change, dies hard.
A few recent examples show how this tends to play out. In Australia, Kevin Rudd was elected to the prime ministership in 2007 with a mandate to address climate change. With the country in drought, and the conservatives reeling from a devastating loss partly driven by climate concerns, the opportunity was there to act. Unfortunately the main game - constraining the ability of powerful industries to continue polluting the atmosphere - became somewhat obscured. The ALP had only one plan on the table, an emissions trading scheme. Emissions trading represents the mainstream international progressive consensus, but actually has its origins in the interactions between economics and the emerging environmental movement in the 1970s. Green groups seeking victories by speaking in the respectful tones of economics have also made emissions trading a cause celebre. (Recently published books by Naomi Klein and Philip Mirowski are informative on this point.)
As soon as Rudd's government introduced legislation, emissions trading began to do the political work it is designed to do. The political energy and momentum attached to climate action was, as Mirowski puts it, "diverted into the endless technicalities of the institution and maintenance of novel markets for carbon permits", while "emissions [continued] to grow apace in the interim". In effect, a government with a strong mandate to curb carbon emissions was destroyed by the politicking around the technical settings of a scheme which tried to avoid alienating voters, consumers and the carbon industry, and wound up pleasing no one. The incoming Abbott government has dismantled Labor's scheme just as it was beginning to curb emissions. Now the likelihood of Australia implementing any meaningful action any time in the next decade seems remote. So much for centrist pragmatism.
In the US, what was the Democrats' proudest progressive achievement - universal health insurance - was, in the mid-terms, a millstone around their necks. Progressives like to blame such reversals on the perversity of voters who do not properly recognise their own interests, and to be sure, many of those who vociferously opposed the scheme before its introduction did so on the basis of rumours about doctors being forced on them and speculation about "death panels". The lasting unpopularity of the Affordable Care Act, however, is as a result of its failing to deliver the progressive goal of universal, equitable health care.
Instead of a "single-payer" scheme - of the kind that Obama himself supported before 2004 - a Democrat controlled congress and White House implemented a scheme designed in outline by the Heritage Foundation and first applied by Mitt Romney. The origins are important when we notice what the scheme does: maintains a transactional, privatised model of healthcare rather than a public one, and allows the insurance industry to continue extracting rents while paying out as little as possible.
Though it extends at least some coverage to those who may otherwise have had none, it also imposes high mandatory costs on low- to middle-income earners (up to 9.5% of their income). It does this without removing the risk of bankruptcy in the case of serious or debilitating illness, and without getting rid of high out of pocket expenses. That means that in a bad year, up to a third of a household's income could disappear in health costs.
Many argue that the mainstream left favours these doomed schemes because they have been corrupted by the money politics of contemporary democracies, so that appeasing corporate donors has become more important than serving voters. To some extent, that's no doubt true. But there is something more fundamental happening that goes to a suffocating Anglophone policy orthodoxy, and a lack of confidence in real progressive ideas.
Since the end of the Cold War (or even slightly before in Australia) centre-left parties have become essentially defensive, while the social democracies they helped build are eroded, sometimes by their own hand. In the view of the Blair-Clinton-Keating "third way", the hangover from which still informs our centre-left parties, markets can only ever be negotiated with - never controlled. Economics is understood to be the authentic language of politics.
This orthodoxy is reinforced in the schools of government, economics and law that serve as political finishing schools for professional politicians, cut off from the social movements that once nourished their parties. It is repeated to them by the political advisers who attended the same schools. Even after the recession hollowed out the middle class, and increased the ranks of the poor, it has been assumed that the interests of the many can be made to coincide with the prosperity of the few. The left are terminally shy of picking fights.
The right have no such aversions. Whereas it's difficult to say who centre-left parties see as their enemies outside the narrow field of electoral politics, the right target public sector workers, public broadcasters, academics and environmentalists for public attack. As the debate over economic issues has collapsed into consensus, it's become easier for conservative parties sponsored by billionaires to mobilise their supporters on cultural issues, and to offer an inverse populism based on a hatred of elites. Fearing above everything the accusation of "class warfare", the official left fails to ameliorate the condition of those going backwards, who will be hit hardest by looming environmental crisis.
It's evident that this unabashed antagonism has underpinned the right's most significant victories, which consist in making their opponents take on their positions. The addiction of the centre-left to neoliberal economic orthodoxy is the least of this; the US Democrats and labour parties in the UK and Australia have taken on many of the right's most frankly antidemocratic stances from sheer political timidity. In Australia, Liberal race-baiting has led Labor to mostly endorse the punitive treatment of asylum seekers, and they're fully signed up to a continued war in the middle east. Labour in the UK are currently tracking right on immigration, having spent their last period in government refining methods for disciplining and surveilling those left behind by a deindustrialised economy. In the US, Obama has authorised extrajudicial drone executions, left Guantanamo open, and is leading the Anglosphere back into Iraq. The official left shows a contempt for the values of its natural supporters that the right would never dare to, or think to.
When Rudd and Obama were elected in quick succession, commentators rushed to draw a line under the neoliberal era that began with Reagan and Thatcher. They spoke too soon. On current form, if anyone is to do that, they will either will not be a part of mainstream left wing parties, or they will come from outside the advanced liberal democracies of the Anglosphere, where politics is less hostile to new and radical ideas.
Third parties like the Greens are attracting support in the UK and particularly in Australia, where Labor appears to have permanently conceded a quarter of its primary vote to the environmental party. But in those countries and in the US, the most inspiring initiatives may come from the citizenry itself. While ossified progressive parties actively reject the vitality of newer social movements concerned with the environment, inequality and new forms of identity politics. The desire for relevance may eventually persuade them that they need to pay closer attention to those demanding that capital be reined in, in the interests of the people and the planet.
Elsewhere, and particularly in Latin America, it's evident that democratic socialism is still a possibility, and a field of experimentation. Their leaders' commitment to basic economic justice is not only something that the Anglosphere's left ought to take on, but which may be necessary for its survival. Those who say we have nothing to learn from still-developing economies have not paid enough attention to regressive developments closer to home. The millions who have been and soon will be immiserated by the machinery of liberal capitalism will have little time for the morality tales of neoliberalism. If existing centre left parties do not speak to their demands, who will?
LOAD-DATE: November 14, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
327 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 14, 2014 Friday 5:43 AM GMT
US at odds with Australia as it pledges billions to climate change fund;
G20 exclusive: Barack Obama to promise as much as $3bn to the Green Climate Fund which was attacked by Tony Abbott
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment editor and Lenore Taylor , Guardian Australia political editor
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 876 words
Barack Obama will make a substantial pledge to a fund to help poor countries fight climate change, again putting the US at odds with Australia, which has argued against diplomatic efforts for G20 leaders to promise more contributions to the fund.
America plans to pledge at least US$2.5bn (AUS$2.88bn) and as much as US$3bn over the next four years to the Green Climate Fund, according to those briefed by administration officials. The fund aims to help poorer countries cut their emissions and prepare for the impact of climate change, and is seen as critical to securing developing-nation support for a successful deal on reducing emissions at the UN meeting in Paris next year.
Tony Abbott had previously insisted Australia would not make any contributions to the fund, although it is understood the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which leads Australia's negotiating position in international climate talks, has been considering whether Canberra should make a pledge. Sources said no final decision had been made.
Asked about the fund before last year's UN climate meeting in Warsaw, the prime minister said: "We're not going to be making any contributions to that." It was reported that at one of its first cabinet meetings the Abbott government decided it would make no contributions to the fund, which was described as "socialism masquerading as environmentalism".
Abbott disparaged the fund at the time, comparing it to a domestic fund championed by the former Greens leader Bob Brown, which he wants to abolish.
He told the Australian newspaper: "One thing the current government will never do is say one thing at home and a different thing abroad. We are committed to dismantling the Bob Brown bank [the Clean Energy Finance Corporation] at home so it would be impossible for us to support a Bob Brown bank on an international scale."
Federal ministers raised strong objections to Australia's commitment to the Green Climate Fund during the cabinet discussion before Warsaw, a meeting to which Australia controversially declined to send the environment minister, Greg Hunt, or any ministerial representative. Foreign minister Julie Bishop will attend this year's meeting in Lima later this month.
In opposition Bishop raised strong concerns that money from the foreign aid budget was being directed towards the climate change fund. "Climate change funding should not be disguised as foreign aid funding," she said, accusing the former government of introducing the now-repealed carbon tax to pay for contributions to the fund.
"This is a tax to gather revenue to redistribute it around the economy and to buy themselves some brownie points at the United Nations," she said in 2011.
The government also pointedly dissented from support for the fund in a communique from last November's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting - a stance backed by Canada.
The US's financial commitment will be unveiled as world leaders gather for the G20 summit in Brisbane. Australia has been fiercely resisting climate change discussions at the summit and does not want it distracting from its desired focus on "economic growth and jobs". But the government was caught off guard when Obama and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping unveiled climate pledges on the eve of the summit.
The pledge to the Green Climate Fund is seen as critical to UN negotiations for a global climate deal. Developing countries have said they cannot sign on to emissions cuts at the Lima meeting without the funds.
Analysts said the $2.5bn figure under discussion before the Brisbane summit was just about enough to demonstrate that the US was willing to put up the cash.
"I think it's a good signal for unlocking the negotiations for Paris in 2015," said Alex Doukas, an international climate policy analyst at the World Resources Institute. Congress will still have to authorise the funds. But some analysts argue that it will be difficult for Republicans to cut out climate finance entirely.
The pledge from Obama could also help spur Britain and other countries to pay into a fund that so far has raised just under $3bn, well short of its initial $10bn target.
Jake Schmidt, who follows international climate negotiations for the Natural Resources Defence Council, said: "[Obama] is trying to use the G20 as a way to put pressure bilaterally and otherwise for countries to put their targets and their financing on the table."
There were early signs the strategy was paying off. The Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, was expected to announce a pledge of up to $1.5bn to the fund at the Brisbane summit, press reports said.
More than $2.8bn had been pledged before the US commitment - including $1bn by France and almost $1bn by Germany. More pledges are expected at a special conference in Berlin on 20 November.
Heather Coleman, a climate analyst at Oxfam, said the US-China deal earlier in the week had helped lay the groundwork for Obama to offer a pledge on climate finance.
"Now that we have demonstrated that China is willing to move forward it does make it more palatable for the US to put more money on the table for international climate finance which everyone knows is the essential key to unlocking negotiations. Without finance you just don't get a global climate deal," she said.
LOAD-DATE: November 14, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
328 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 14, 2014 Friday 5:23 AM GMT
block-time published-time 4.23pm AEST Turkish;
British prime minister outlines plans to counter extremists, warns against protectionism, describes new threat of 'authoritarian capitalism' and says Britain's economy has turned a corner in his speech to a special sitting of parliament in Canberra. Follow developments live...
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 8526 words
block-time published-time 4.23pm AEST
Turkish prime minister. Tick.
Turkish Prime minister Ahmet Davutoglu speaks at the Griffith University G20 summit. Photograph: LUKAS COCH/AAPIMAGE
block-time published-time 4.21pm AEST
South Korean president. Tick.
South Korea's president Park Geun-hye on her arrival in Brisbane for the G20 Summit. Photograph: PATRICK HAMILTON/AFP/Getty Images
block-time published-time 4.20pm AEST
Japanese president. Tick.
Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe on arrival in Brisbane for the G20 Summit. Photograph: PATRICK HAMILTON/AFP/Getty Images
block-time published-time 4.18pm AEST
Mexican president. Tick.
Mexico's President Enrique Pena Nieto and First Lady Angelica Rivera Hurtado upon their arrival in Brisbane for the G20 Summit. Photograph: PATRICK HAMILTON/AFP/Getty Images
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.20pm AEST
block-time published-time 4.12pm AEST
Faced with the news earlier that the Russian ships were here to research climate change, Shalailah Medhora did her best to track down a Russian spokesman to check if AAP could possibly be correct.
A spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin clarified reports that Russian naval ships are in international waters near Australia to undertake climate research. He says the boats have a number of goals, including maritime and Antarctic research.
They are here for the peace and stability of Russia and the world.
block-time published-time 4.10pm AEST
The G20 centre in Brisbane is in gridlock as leaders and associated staff converge. I can sense the sigh in the voice of my colleague Daniel Hurst.
Irony. #G20 press conference scheduled for now is delayed because one of the speakers is caught in traffic
- Daniel Hurst (@danielhurstbne) November 14, 2014
block-time published-time 4.00pm AEST
Senator Scott Ludlam appreciating First Dog.
what even is the #G20 - http://t.co/TebJMiBath@firstdogonmoon dogue is on point today
- Scott Ludlam (@SenatorLudlam) November 14, 2014
block-time published-time 3.54pm AEST
The Green Climate Fund was the thing that the Abbott government really did not want anything to do with. Also from Suzanne and Lenore Taylor's report:
As revealed by Guardian Australia, Australia has been arguing against behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts for G20 leaders to promise to make contributions to the fund.
The prime minister, Tony Abbott, had previously insisted Australia would not make any contributions to it, although it is understood the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which leads Australia's negotiating position in international climate talks, has been considering whether Canberra should make a pledge. Sources said no final decision had been made.
Asked about the fund before last year's UN climate meeting in Warsaw, the prime minister said: "We're not going to be making any contributions to that." It was reported that at one of its first cabinet meetings the Abbott government decided it would make no contributions to the fund that was described as "socialism masquerading as environmentalism".
Abbott disparaged the fund at the time, comparing it to a domestic fund championed by the former Greens leader Bob Brown, which he wants to abolish.
He told the Australian newspaper: "One thing the current government will never do is say one thing at home and a different thing abroad. We are committed to dismantling the Bob Brown bank [the Clean Energy Finance Corporation] at home so it would be impossible for us to support a Bob Brown bank on an international scale."
block-time published-time 3.50pm AEST
US pledges $2.5bn to Green Climate Fund
Suzanne Goldenberg and Lenore Taylor reports :
Barack Obama will make a substantial pledge to a fund to help poor countries fight climate change, only days after his historic carbon pollution deal with China.
In a one-two punch, America plans to pledge at least $2.5bn and as much as $3bn over the next four years to help poor countries invest in clean energy and cope with rising seas and extreme weather, according to those briefed by administration officials.
The financial commitment will be unveiled as world leaders gather for the G20 summit in Brisbane, sending a powerful signal of Obama's determination to act on climate change despite the Republican takeover of Congress in mid-term elections.
The pledge to the Green Climate Fund was seen as critical to UN negotiations for a global climate deal. Developing countries have said they cannot sign on to emissions cuts at climate talks in Lima later this month without the funds.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 3.54pm AEST
block-time published-time 3.44pm AEST
Greens senator Rachel Siewert has taken issue with Tony Abbott's earlier comments (see the 9.27am post) about the state of Australia when the First Fleet arrived. Siewart says Abbott keeps sending mixed messages about European settlement.
The Prime Minister's 'nothing but bush' comments once again ignore the fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have been in Australia for many tens of thousands of years, and that British settlement began a process of discrimination and dispossession.
This is another example of the Prime Minister ignoring the reality of colonisation and the peoples, flourishing culture, languages that were here at the time of European settlement.
block-time published-time 3.36pm AEST
Brisbane Lord Mayor Graham Quirk has held a press conference with a little practical advice for leaders and punters alike, given the weather - along with China and the United States - is conspiring to push climate change onto the G20 agenda.
Q: Lord Mayor, there's forecasts of 39 degree heat on Sunday. Do you have any advice for international visitors about how to cope, how Brisbane people cope, with that sort of heat? Should they go to the beach early in the morning on the Sunday or something?
Lord Mayor Quirk : Well, we have a saying here, which is "slip, slop, slap" and it is about slipping on a hat. But for those of you who haven't bought a hat, I notice that in the welcoming packs out there, that there is an umbrella. So whether it is rainy conditions or pretty hot conditions out there, then umbrellas are there for people's use. And also a cap. So people ought to take up that opportunity.
Meanwhile, AAP reports Queensland water police are investigating the cause of peculiar bubbles in the Brisbane River within the declared G20 zone. Divers and police boats were at the scene near the Queensland Performing Arts Centre at South Bank on Friday afternoon.
Water police are checking to see what the source of the bubbles are, but it's not believed to be suspicious at this stage, a police spokesman said.
SUSPICIOUS BUBBLING PEOPLE THERE IS SUSPICIOUS BUBBLING THERE ARE BUBBLES IN A RIVER MAKE THEM STOP. http://t.co/aAYQq3w91s
- Stilgherrian (@stilgherrian) November 14, 2014
block-time published-time 3.19pm AEST
Karen Middleton of SBS caught the C20.
Civil society NGO reps call for fairness in #G20 growth strategies & discussion on climate change, youth, women pic.twitter.com/likay6i15z
- Karen Middleton (@KarenMMiddleton) November 14, 2014
block-time published-time 3.16pm AEST
I think Vladamir Putin is trolling Tony Abbott.
The Russian embassy gives an explanation in an AAP story:
RUSSIA has for the first time explained the presence of a fleet of warships off north-eastern Australia, saying that the ships are testing their range capability, in case they have to do climate change research in the Antarctic.
The Russian embassy also said the fleet could, if necessary, provide security for Russian President Vladimir Putin, who arrives in Brisbane for the G20 tonight.
block-time published-time 2.56pm AEST
Namaste: Indian PM Narendra Modi.
The diplomatic rockstar of the G20, Indian prime minister Narendra Modi arrived in Brisbane on Friday for the G20 summit, the first Indian PM to visit Australia since Rajiv Gandhi in 1986. Modi, as a new PM, is the man everyone wants to see at this meeting.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrives at Brisbane Airport to attend the G20 Leader's Summit. Photograph: GREG WOOD/AFP/Getty Images
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 2.57pm AEST
block-time published-time 2.47pm AEST
Here is another bit of video for you showing the real Brisbane. Guardian's correspondent Josh Robertson has been very busy.
There are two points to note with this video.
1. Which archbishop got a tattoo?
2. What a terrible organisation we are, here at the Guardian.
block-time published-time 2.41pm AEST
Costello blames rich countries for ebola outbreak
Guardian's Ben Doherty has been at the C20 summit.
Tim Costello, chief executive of World Vision Australia, and chair of the C20, has blamed the world's richest countries for the latest outbreak of Ebola being so deadly.
So far, the current outbreak has killed 5000 people.
Ebola: profound government and market failure. Why wasn't there research into Ebola, it's because we said 'it only breaks out in Africa, and it's patchy, and they don't have a big market because they're poor'. That's why we don't have a vaccine, that's why we don't have a treatment, it's because it didn't affect us. It's a profound government/market failure, because suddenly Ebola's reaching us and we're scrambling. The G20 must have fairness for people who are the poorest.
block-time published-time 2.34pm AEST
The British PM and The Brick.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron meets PUP senator Glenn Lazarus, with Bill Shorten, Sam Dastyari and Dio Wang. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 2.31pm AEST
The C20 is the group representing domestic and international non government organisations and individuals who in social services, environment, women, Indigenous, multicultural and human rights organisations.
Kind of everyone else apart from governments and business.
They are having a press conference now about what they want from the G20.
The c20 has made 18 interrelated recommendations across the areas of inclusive growth and employment, infrastructure, climate change and resource sustainability and governance, including importantly, international taxation reform and transparency.
Chair of the C20, Tim Costello, says civil society has a right to be involved and is now finally embedded in the G20 process - given business has long been involved. He said the G20 cannot talk about growth without working out ways for the (income) growth to flow down to the bottom 20% households of the G20 countries.
It's essentially about people and the high financial and economic architecture which is incomprehensible to most people in G20 nations dramatically affects their lives. Or the non-decisions, if we don't get outcomes, affects their lives also.
The fact that business has always been a significant player at the G20 and we know with governments being broke they're essentially saying to business "Tell us what red tape you want us to cut and deregulation you need so we can get you investing".
block-time published-time 2.16pm AEST
British Prime Minister David Cameron places a poppy in the roll of honour wall as Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott watches. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 2.15pm AEST
British prime minister David Cameron with Australian prime minister Tony Abbott at the roll of honour at the Australian War Memorial. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 2.01pm AEST
Our Brisbane correspondent Josh Robertson reports from Brisbane:
The Australia Tibet Council chose to unfurl its protest against China's human rights record outside Brisbane's controlled security zone for G20 - but still managed to attract a flicker of interest from police.
The activists invited media to a cliff top, riverside park in New Farm this morning to make their point: G20 nations should unite to confront China, which seems to deflect concerns on Tibet whenever the matter is raised one on one.
"In all these bilateral engagements, China seems to have the upper hand, using empty threats of economic and diplomatic penalties, they're able to easily shut down any criticism of Tibet and human rights," the council's Kyinzom Dhongdue said.
Dhongdue said Tibetan hopes that new Chinese president Xi Jinping would be a progressive influence had been dashed, with moves to "criminalise" those activists who burned themselves in protest, who number some 133 under Jinping's watch.
Dhongdue said survivors had been charged as terrorists and their families threatened and spied on.
"It's a vicious cycle of repression and resistence," she said
"To address the human rights crisis in Tibet, governments must come together and stand up to China."
A police car watched the demonstration from a distance but did not intervene.
block-time published-time 1.55pm AEST
I know you love a shirtfront joke so here it is. Entering the international diplomatic lexicon.
block-time published-time 1.52pm AEST
Lunchtime political wrap
British prime minister David Cameron has addressed the Australian parliament, outlining his countries anti-terror laws, highlighting the importance of maintaining democratic values and fighting the extremist narrative. He said countries should resist protectionist urges and he called on leaders to push through an EU-US trade agreement, and also an Australia-EU agreement. Cameron laid a wreath at the Australian War Memorial.
Bill Shorten has called on Tony Abbott to place climate change, global trade, youth unemployment and inclusive growth on the G20 agenda.
Christine Milne said the failure of both Tony Abbott and David Cameron to mention climate change in their speeches to parliament was the "elephant in the room". Bill Shorten did not mention it either.
Now the leaders will be preparing to head to Brisbane for the G20.
block-time published-time 1.40pm AEST
For a news story on the events of this morning, here is Lenore Taylor :
British prime minister David Cameron has linked controversial new foreign fighter and anti-terrorism laws in both Britain and Australia with the common values of freedom and democracy he cited as the "bedrock" of both societies.
In a speech to the Australian parliament, Cameron said the root cause of extremism was not poverty or social exclusion or foreign policy but rather the "extremist narrative" which had to be "rooted out", including by government actions to remove extremist material from the internet.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.40pm AEST
block-time published-time 1.38pm AEST
Milne was asked about David Cameron's comments about the US-China deal, in which he reacted cautiously about the emissions targets because the detail had not been released.
Milne said the US-China deal was the opening round ahead of the UN Paris climate summit and warned Australia would be left behind.
This is significant because it means that China has moved. The United States has moved. It leaves countries like Australia out in the cold. Wrong side of history. And what it signals is that the business of the planet is going to be on low carbon economies. New technology. Innovation. Encouraging entrepreneurial skills. Investment in research. This is where Australia is going to miss out really badly. You know the last thing I want to see isAustralia's best and brightest leave Australia and go overseas because that's where the action is on addressing global warming. Tony Abbott cannot absolutely condemn Australia to being the quarry.
block-time published-time 1.33pm AEST
Christine Milne laughs off the possibility of an European Union-Australian trade deal.
David Cameron first of all has to tell us whether he's even committed to staying in the EU, all the talk from the Tories in the UK has been in response to the UK Independence Party trying to make the case for why the EU isn't so great for Britain. And yet he comes out here to Australia and talks up the potential of an EU/Australia free trade agreement.
block-time published-time 1.28pm AEST
Here is what David Cameron said about trade deals, specifically regarding the EU-US and the EU-Australia.
Let's start this weekend at the G20 and take these arguments head on. Let's see through a EU-US deal that could be the biggest of its kind on the planet.
And while we are at it, let's push for an EU-Australia deal too.
Because if we have the confidence to stay true to our values, we can defeat
the protectionist arguments and secure huge advances in prosperity.
For our nations and for our trading partners all around the world.
block-time published-time 1.26pm AEST
Greens leader Christine Milne is speaking about the huge elephant in the room.
Global warming.
The fact that you could have prime minister Cameron and prime minister Abbott both making their speeches today and no mention of global warming just shows you how out of touch Australia is. Prime Minister Abbott is not going to be able to get pay way with that at the G20. We are living in a global emergency. We have a situation where both China and the US and the EU have now all moved significantly on global warming, and here we have an Australian prime minister who loves coal, wants to stay in last century and be on thewrong side of history.
block-time published-time 1.23pm AEST
The latest boy band...
Good to host @TonyAbbottMHR & @David_Cameron in #Sydney today to discuss the value of investing in infrastructure pic.twitter.com/hlOfvaysfB
- Mike Baird (@mikebairdMP) November 14, 2014
I just want to see them clicking their fingers in unison.
block-time published-time 1.19pm AEST
David Cameron is laying a wreath in the hall of memory at the Australian War Memorial to honour the Unknown Soldier.
block-time published-time 1.18pm AEST
David Cameron addressing the chamber.
David Cameron in the chamber. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia UK Prime Minister David Cameron examines the opposition dispatch box. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 1.07pm AEST
The last question is again to David Cameron on his anti-terror laws, particularly the power to take away British passports from people fighting overseas. The questions are around leaving British citizens effectively stateless. The British journalist also makes the point that even the Australian government has not done that. Our reputation precedes us, apparently. This from Cameron :
Successive governments have come to the view - and I agree with the view - that when you're facing an existential challenge as great as the one we face with Islamist extremists, you need additional powers as well as simply the criminal law. That's why we have these powers to take away someone's passport before they travel, to ban someone from travelling and that's why we've added this additional power to temporarily exclude someone from coming back into the UK, because we believe you need an additional set of powers in order to keep the country safe over and above what the criminal law allows.
Murray and Eric Maxton from Albany in WA who flew in the same Lancaster bomber during WWII meet UK Prime Minister David Cameron, Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull in parliament. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
Happily, Murray and Eric Maxton obviously made it to David Cameron's address. The brothers were invited from Western Australia for the event but there was no air ticket in the invitation.
block-time published-time 12.56pm AEST
Second question on whether Britain's terror laws will maroon British citizens overseas.
Cameron says it is his duty to keep British people safe while Abbott echoes his comments.
Third question on Russia's increasing military assertiveness.
Cameron :
Russian action in Ukraine is unacceptable. We have to be clear about what we're dealing with here. It is a large state bullying a smaller state in Europe and we've seen the consequences of that in the past and we should learn the lessons of history and make sure we don't let it happen again. I don't believe there's a military solution to this, but I think the sanctions are important.
Abbott :
The last thing I ever imagined 12 months or so back was I would be standing at this podium talking about Russian assertiveness and aggression.
Abbott says Russia's involvement in the Mhl disaster through Russian-backed rebels and calls on Russia to:
come clean and atone.
Then we are back to the Tsar.
Interestingly, Russia's economy is declining even as Russia's assertiveness is increasing and one of the points I tried to make to Putin is that Russia would be so much more attractive if it was aspiring to be a superpower for peace and freedom and prosperity, if it was trying to be a superpower for ideas and for values instead of trying to recreate the lost glories of tsarism or the old Soviet Union.
block-time published-time 12.48pm AEST
First question is on climate change and the China-US agreement.
Cameron says he is waiting to see the details of the agreement but he believes all countries should be taking action on climate change.
Abbott says he welcomes the US China deal, given they are the biggest emitters.
China emits some 24% of global carbon dioxide. The United States emits some 15% of global carbon dioxide by contrast. Australia's about 1%, so I think it's important that they do get cracking when it comes to this. I'm very proud of the fact that at the same time as we got rid of the carbon tax which was damaging our economy without helping the environment, we've put in place our direct action policy and I am absolutely confident that our Direct Action policy will deliver our 5% cut on 2000 levels by 2020.
block-time published-time 12.44pm AEST
David Cameron says Britain is growing at 3% a year, and is happy that the G20 should boost growth.
I think you're also right to highlight the importance of free trade and the dangers of protectionism. The other things I'll be hoping to put on the G20 agenda are obviously the continuing issue of making sure we have better tax cooperation between countries so that big companies pay the tax bills they should.
block-time published-time 12.42pm AEST
Tony Abbott lauds Britain's anti terror laws.
David Cameron said in his speech there will be new powers for police at ports to seize passports, to stop suspects travelling and to stop British nationals returning to the UK unless they do so on the government's terms. Therre will also be new rules to prevent airlines that don't comply with no-fly lists or security screening measures from landing in the UK.
block-time published-time 12.39pm AEST
David Cameron and Tony Abbott are in the prime minister's courtyard for a joint press conference.
Abbott says he appreciated Cameron's comments about economics, trade and security.
He looks forward to the G20 and says "you can't have prosperity without security".
block-time published-time 12.31pm AEST
Inspecting the troops.
British Prime Minister David Cameron at a ceremonial welcome on the forecourt of Parliament House. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 12.29pm AEST
Age shall not weary them.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron speaking to Australian veterans in parliament. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 12.26pm AEST
Shorten is asked about the Australia-Russian relationship.
All Australians know that Tony Abbott overreached when he had a brain snap and said he would shirt front Vladimir Putin. We heard the Prime Minister of England make a joke of the use of the word shirt front in his excellent address to theParliament. What really matters here is getting answers for the families of the victims of MH-17.
He says Russia should behave like a "good international citizen" and provide information to the Dutch investigation.
block-time published-time 12.23pm AEST
Bill Shorten :
If Australia wants to walk on the international stage, we can't pick and choose when we want to be international and when we want to be isolationist. We can't just talk about free trade without talking about tackling youth unemployment. We can't talk about security alone in northern Iraq and then ignore the challenge of Ebola in West Africa. We most certainly need to address climate change as the presidents of China and the United States have done so in such a dramatic fashion this week. Make no mistake, when Tony Abbott says he only wants to concentrate on economic issues what we see is a stubborn isolationist who won't admit climate change is an economic issue.
block-time published-time 12.21pm AEST
Bill Shorten is giving a press conference now. Shorten says Australia needs to be a nation of vision and confidence. He says the G20 is a test of leadership for Tony Abbott. He called on the prime minister to push:
climate change
inclusive growth
pushing global trade
and tackling youth unemployment.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.21pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.17pm AEST
Downer in the House.
Australian High Commissioner to the UK and former (Liberal) foreign minister Alexander Downer in the chamber. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 12.15pm AEST
Cameron is ushered into parliament.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron is led into the chamber by the Usher of the Black Rod. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 12.11pm AEST
"Strewth", said Cameron.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron in Parliament House. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
Trying a little Australian slang.
block-time published-time 12.09pm AEST
One more quote from Bill Shorten :
Today, the War Memorial salutes the memory of Australians who have served our nation in every conflict and peacekeeping operation. So often they have served, fought, fallen, side by side with British soldiers.
From the open veldt of South Africa, to the skies over Europe, most recently in the mountains of Afghanistan and the skies over Mesopotamia, our countries have forged an unbreakable bond of courage and sacrifice - of mutual respect and regard.
Their spirit, their bravery, their shared sense of duty and honour unites our countries in history forever.
block-time published-time 12.07pm AEST
Bill Shorten :
Britain has joined Europe and Australia has found our place in Asia. We sing our own anthems, we celebrate our own cultures.We enjoy a genuine exchange in education, art, music, cinema, literature and fashion.
And whether it is the Ashes, rugby, netball, the Olympics, the Paralympics or the Commonwealth games, we relish an international sporting rivalry as old as any on earth.
Our sledging can sometimes surprise the uninitiated - but it reflects the depth of our friendship - we can dish it out because we know we will get it back. We are both good losers - and fantastic winners.
block-time published-time 12.06pm AEST
Bill Shorten echoed a line of Tony Abbott's with a twist:
The deep and abiding friendship between our nations has evolved and matured. Australia no longer looks to Britain out of need, or dependence - we no longer seek to imitate, or echo. Instead we greet each other as equals and peers - as partners in the world.
block-time published-time 12.02pm AEST
Let me back track to Bill Shorten now with some funny historical anecdotes.
Prime Minister, the first of your predecessors to visit our country did so before Federation - and before he was even a Member of Parliament.
Lord Salisbury, the Conservative icon and one of the great architects of the Empire, visited the colonies as a young man in the 1850s.
Two observations from his lordships journal stand out:
One, his lordship reported there was " less crime than expected".
Two, his lordship reported that the " customary form of address was: mate''.
Just over a hundred years later, Harold MacMillan became the first Prime Minister to experience Australian hospitality whilst in office.
As he recalled:
As I drove into Sydney on my first arrival there, I was amazed to see the great numbers of people in the streets and issuing from all houses.
A huge crowd had turned out to welcome me, far greater, I thought, than any similar crowd could ever be in the old country, and I was deeply touched.
Then someone told me the truth. It was six o'clock ...[and the pubs were closing].
Prime Minister, you will be relieved to hear that the days of the six o'clock swill and early closing are long gone.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.03pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.58am AEST
David Cameron finishes with the point that democracies always seem combative, in a nod - I thought - to the disillusionment with modern politics in the first world.
Here in this Chamber and in the House of Commons back in Britain, we let the brickbats fly. We sometimes say some pretty rude things to each other. We trade insults and put-downs. Not everyone quite gets it.
His point was that for all our flaws and the barbs traded in modern political arena, the values that underpin those societies are strong.
Never forget that we live in countries where the press is free, the law is fair, the right to redress universally available, property rights universally enforceable, the freedom of speech the foundation of our democracy. And let's remember that these things - these incredible values we share - are not just what make our societies strong; they make our economies strong too.
block-time published-time 11.53am AEST
After outlining the anti-terror laws, David Cameron lauds a free press:
Our free and fearless press shines a light wherever it is needed, without fear or favour. Of course that can make life difficult - but it helps drive out the corruption that destroys so many countries. Our governments lose cases in court, because we don't control the courts. But that's why people invest in our countries because they have property rights, and they know that they can get redress from the rule of law and that we have judges who are honest and not on the make.
block-time published-time 11.52am AEST
David Cameron :
Finally, there's a more insipient creeping threat to our values that I want to mention. And it comes from those who say that we will be outcompeted and outgunned by countries that believe there is a short cut to success, a new model of authoritarian capitalism that is unencumbered by the values and restrictions we impose on ourselves. In particular, an approach that is free from the accountability of real democracy and the rule of law. I say: we should have the confidence to reject this view and stay true to our values.
block-time published-time 11.50am AEST
David Cameron warns against protectionism, saying it leads to more jobs and higher wages.
One of the greatest threats to our values and to our success is the spectre of protectionism. Too many people still seem to believe that trade is some sort of zero sum game.
block-time published-time 11.47am AEST
David Cameron :
As we confront this extremism together, let us have faith in the appeal of what our modern societies can offer. Yes, the battles for equality of opportunity for every person of every race and creed are not yet fully won but today your country and my country are places where people can take part, can have their say, can achieve their dreams, places where people feel free to say, "Yes, I'm a Muslim. I'm a Hindu, I'm a Christian but I'm also proud to be a Briton or an Australian too." And that sense of identity, that voice, that stake in society all come directly from standing up for values and our beliefs in open economies and open societies.
block-time published-time 11.45am AEST
Cameron talks about the British economy turning the corner and pays tribute to John Howard and Gough Whitlam.
He says Australia and Britain have always stood firm together because they share the same values.
He briefly outlines Britain's anti-terror laws, but then talks about how to address the root cause of terrorism, the extremist narrative.
As we do so, we must work with the overwhelming majority of Muslims who abhor the twisted narrative that has seduced some of our people. We must continue to celebrate Islam as a great world religion of peace.
He says the internet is presenting a challenge in the fight against the extremist narrative. He says government has a role to ensure it does not become an ungoverned space.
In the UK we are pushing (internet companies) to do more include strengthening filters, improving reporting mechanisms and being more proactive in taking down this harmful material.
block-time published-time 11.39am AEST
David Cameron thanks Australia for its help on ebola: "Typical Australia, always there with action not words."
But for a while our political relationship fell into a state of what William Hague called benign neglect. It's extraordinary to think that no British Foreign Secretary had visited Australia in nearly 20 years. I was determined to change that. Now you've had three visits in as many years and a British Prime Minister twice as well. You might start to think we're beginning to over-do it.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.58pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.36am AEST
Cameron talked about Australia's willingness to help on the world stage and cracks a shirtfront joke.
Only last month your Foreign Minister strode across the room towards me at a summit in Italy. I wondered for a moment whether I was heading for what I'm told we now need to call a shirtfronting.
block-time published-time 11.35am AEST
David Cameron acknowledges the traditional owners of the country. (Abbott did not. Shorten did).
Every chapter of Australia's story has been inspiring. I think of your Indigenous culture with roots stretching back millennia and I feel pride that Aboriginal Australians are now studying at Oxford and Cambridge and one of those scholars, Leila Smith, is here with us today.
block-time published-time 11.34am AEST
Cameron plays tribute to Australian diggers and recalls going to Anzac Cove as a younger man.
We will never forget the thousands of Australian troops who stoodand fought and fell from Lone Pine to the Somme. I especially think of those who fell in Gallipoli which I visited as a young man, surrounded by Aussies and Kiwis the same age as me. We joked as we took the boat across the Straits. But aswe landed and saw that extraordinary memorial, we all fell silent, moved beyond words by what our forefathers had done together.
block-time published-time 11.32am AEST
Cameron addresses Australian parliament.
David Cameron's address.
Coming here is like visiting family, says Cameron.
He also goes to the rivalry mentioned by Shorten.
There's our rivalries on and off the playing field, our fondness for teasing each other's habits and phrases, of course we Poms are known for our bluntness and we never really get your tendancy to beat around the bush and not say what you really mean. We have enormous affection for each other. We may live on opposite sides of the planet but it is hard to think of another country to which theBritish people feel so instinctively close.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.58pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.30am AEST
Bill Shorten is speaking now to echo the old friendship point and harks back to his ancestors. His is a more earthy speech, touching on the rivalry between the two countries but ultimately the unity between the two cultures.
I particularly want to pay a belated tribute to the British justice system because without your strong sentencing laws, some of my mother's Irish ancestors would never have come to Australia.
block-time published-time 11.27am AEST
Abbott finally quotes writer Clive James to note the integral part Britain has played in Australia's development.
He presents Australia and Britain as very close and similar nations.
After two centuries in which both of us have constantly adapted to our own changing and different circumstances, it's remarkable how similar we've become.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.57pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.24am AEST
Tony Abbott makes a regular point about Australia's place in Asia not diminishing the relationship with Britain.
Of course Australia is located in the Indo-Pacific but our place is wherever there is an interest to advance, a citizen to protect, a value to uphold or a friend to encourage. To a similar debate in Britain, Prime Minister Cameron has brought the same robust common sense. Britain is a European country with a global role. And like people, countries don't make new friends by losing old ones and they don't deepen some relationships by diminishing others.
block-time published-time 11.22am AEST
Abbott makes the point Australia and Britain are still fighting together in the war against Islamic State:
History matters because it helps us to know who we are and where we're going. It helps us to know what's important and who can be relied upon. It shapes us but it should never control us.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.59am AEST
block-time published-time 11.20am AEST
Tony Abbott remembers the Australian and British soldiers who died during wartime, fighting with each other. A number of veterans are in the chamber.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.57pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.19am AEST
Abbott:
And what would this world be if Britain had not settled the territory that Captain Cook earlier called NSW? Long ago, Madam Speaker, Australians ceased to regard Britain as the mother country but we are still family. The relationship between Britain and Australia has changed beyond recognition but it's still important and we still matter to each other.
block-time published-time 11.18am AEST
Abbott:
There is so much that Britain has given to us. There's so much, indeed, that Britain has given to everyone. Parliamentary democracy, the common law, constitutional monarchy, and English, the world's first or second language.
Abbot mentions Shakespeare, The Beatles, the advances of the first industrial revolution, and the determination of Churchill?
block-time published-time 11.16am AEST
Tony Abbott:
The first Christian sermon preached in this country took as its text "what shall I render unto the Lord for all his blessings towards me?" This indeed has always characterised us. Gratitude for what we have and a fierce determination to build on it. Modern Australia has an Aboriginal heritage, a British foundation and a multicultural character.
block-time published-time 11.15am AEST
Tony Abbott is welcoming David Cameron and giving a history lesson to build on the British-Australian relationship.
Of those on the First Fleet, the very best that could be said of them was that they had been chosen by the finest judges in England.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.56pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.14am AEST
So it's pretty squashy in parliament and the public galleries are full.
David Cameron is announced. The central chamber doors open and Cameron is introduced to the house and to applause and a standing ovation.
block-time published-time 11.11am AEST
The Speaker Bronwyn Bishop is on her feet, opening parliament.
block-time published-time 11.04am AEST
Here is a bit of smoke from the forecourt, via Karen Barlow of SBS.
Captured the moment one of those enormous guns fired out the front parliament! pic.twitter.com/g5xURYQWsT
- Karen Barlow (@KJBar) November 14, 2014
block-time published-time 11.01am AEST
From the Aboriginal deaths in custody protest in Brisbane:
Crowd swelled to about 300 at the Aboriginal deaths in custody protest at #G20Brisbanepic.twitter.com/L9WiB4qykE
- Mark Di Stefano (@MarkDiStef) November 13, 2014
block-time published-time 10.56am AEST
David Cameron's address is coming up as the independent legal observers arrive in Brisbane.
There are six "independent legal observers" in white singlets hovering on the outside of the #G20Brisbane protest pic.twitter.com/Hp7OnOHAUN
- Mark Di Stefano (@MarkDiStef) November 13, 2014
block-time published-time 10.52am AEST
Mark Di Stefano for Buzzfeed is tweeting from the G20 protests regarding Aboriginal deaths in custody.
At "Aboriginal deaths in custody" protest there about as many journalists as protestors at the moment #G20Brisbanepic.twitter.com/CoZOkdOPzB
- Mark Di Stefano (@MarkDiStef) November 13, 2014
block-time published-time 10.49am AEST
That's it for the welcome ceremony. David Cameron is in the House to sign the visitors' book. DC woz 'ere. There's a warm leaders' handshake for the cameras and then more official party stuff.
block-time published-time 10.47am AEST
Now the Australian anthem, Advance Australia Fair. You li'l beauty rich and rare.
block-time published-time 10.45am AEST
David Cameron is meeting the official party, including Speaker Bronwyn Bishop, Labor deputy leader Tanya Plibersek, Alexander Downer and others.
Now stand up for God Save the Queen please.
block-time published-time 10.42am AEST
David Cameron is now inspecting Australia's federation guard to a jaunty little tune, the kind you would hear as the troops were making merry in Guns of Navarone.
block-time published-time 10.37am AEST
David Cameron has arrived at parliament in a white car with a British flag on the front as the seagulls whirl through the forecourt over head. The guns are going, in their customary salute.
block-time published-time 10.35am AEST
Who wants to do fill in commentary? On ABC24, former advisor to Tony Blair, Nick Rowley is asked to explain the similarities between Cameron and Abbott.
Well...they are both men...
He did go on to make some very salient points, to be fair.
block-time published-time 10.33am AEST
Meanwhile, in Brisbane, the locals have vanished.
Friday morning, and parts of the #Brisbane CBD are a ghost town #G20#G20Brisbanepic.twitter.com/UPClMSwHfU
- Adam Todd (@_AdamTodd) November 13, 2014
block-time published-time 10.30am AEST
Tony Abbott has arrived in the parliamentary forecourt. He is now waiting for David Cameron, who is in a different car.
block-time published-time 10.26am AEST
The drums have started out the front. Australian flags are being waved, the anthem is played. A soldier is yelling very loudly.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.27am AEST
block-time published-time 10.26am AEST
Tony Abbott from this morning on the British-Australian relationship.
It's a relationship between, if not quite equals, certainly peers, and it is as warm as, as intimate, and as important as any relationship on this eTarth.
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and David Cameron. Photograph: DAN HIMBRECHTS/AAPIMAGE
He was discussing economic size.
block-time published-time 10.14am AEST
Former Australian Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser has some advice for his successor Tony Abbott.
Coal versus climate in Australia. Climate change must be discussed if meeting is to have relevance http://t.co/8YdQFA2zg3
- Malcolm Fraser (@MalcolmFraser12) November 12, 2014
block-time published-time 10.08am AEST
Tony Abbott was not to be outdone. He was talking up the prospects of foreign investment, notably British foreign investment.
We will give this country the muscle and the sinew that it needs to advance into the future and we will do it in partnership with investors from Britain and elsewhere. There is a long history of British investment in Australia. After the US, Britain is by far the biggest investor in this country. It's been a very steady consistent flow of British investment into this country ever since the very beginning of settlement here in 1788.
block-time published-time 10.06am AEST
Arrrr me hearties. David Cameron has found his buccaneering spirit. It wasn't only Tony Abbott spruiking his government's achievements.
No doubt after some difficult years Britain is back. Our economy is now the fastest growing of any G7 countries, we're going to do plus 3% this year. We've seen, since I've been PM, 2 million private sector jobs created, that is more jobs created than in the rest of the European Union put together. We've seen some real progress in our country. 400,000 more businesses operating in Britain and a sense that our economy is really on the move. Lots of challenges because we're in a neighbourhood that doesn't have a huge amount of growth and lots of things we need to crack but the British economy is back. We have refound that buccaneering trading spirit and we're linking ourselves up with all of the fastest growing parts of the world.
block-time published-time 10.02am AEST
While we are limbering up for David Cameron's arrival, you may like to do a primer on what the G20 hopes to achieve. Lenore Taylor has written a piece to get you up to speed on the hopes and dreams of the G20 and whether they will get there:
In 2008 when the global economy was in crisis, the G20 stepped up. But in the six years since it has become better known for the protests it attracts than the progress it has made on its central goals of promoting growth and strengthening international economic institutions.
So when the leaders meet again this weekend in Brisbane, Australia, they will be under pressure to achieve something tangible for the gathering to prove its relevance. But it is not at all clear that the "announceables" - the outcomes pre-negotiated by officials after a full year of meetings - will be sufficient to achieve that goal.
block-time published-time 9.56am AEST
Let's put this story under the theme, my gun is bigger than yours.
Brisbane's Courier Mail is reporting that another Australian ship has been sent to "intercept" the Russian fleet heading our way.
A third Australian warship has been dispatched to intercept a Russian flotilla steaming towards the G20 summit in Brisbane and a fourth navy vessel is ready to divert to the area. The replenishment ship HMAS Sirius is heading into the Coral Sea to support the frigates HMAS Parramatta and HMAS Stuart and the frigate HMAS Sydney is preparing to divert from an exercise in New Zealand to join the mission, according to a government source.
News' national defence writer Ian McPhedran "understands that the government also asked the Navy about the possibility of a Collins Class submarine joining the mission but was told that the nearest boat was in Perth and would not be able to reach the area until well after the G20 summit was over".
But there are anti-submarine warfare choppers on the Australian ships but don't panic. Defence sources said a Russian submarine is not likely to be in the area.
block-time published-time 9.45am AEST
Business is Gr8 Mate.
Talking to business leaders in Sydney about our long-term economic plan, which is helping the UK grow in tough times. pic.twitter.com/edbCJTqGKN
- David Cameron (@David_Cameron) November 13, 2014
block-time published-time 9.42am AEST
Summary of morning events for David Cameron
Here is a rundown, just in case you need to adjust your day for the events of the parliament.
David Cameron and Tony Abbott is about to arrive in Canberra, due at 10am.
There will be a ceremonial welcome in the forecourt of parliament at 10.30am and then he will sign the visitors book shortly before 11am. He will address the house at 11.10am, with the senators squashing in to the green benches. Then the two leaders will give a joint press conference before speeding off to the Australian War Memorial to lay a wreath.
block-time published-time 9.35am AEST
Head in the sand on climate change
As world leaders arrive at the G20 Summit in Brisbane, more than 400 people buried their heads in the sand at Bondi Beach in Sydney. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
Bowers was scouting around Sydney yesterday in preparation for the G20 and caught these people, 400 of them, protesting about Australia's stance on climate change. They buried their heads in the sand, bums in the air. With the surfboards, it seems a very Australian protest.
block-time published-time 9.27am AEST
After the walk, Tony Abbott and David Cameron had a business breakfast. The theme was infrastructure, in keeping with Abbott's election slogans, the infrastructure of the 21st century. Abbott showed his writerly tendencies in imagining what it was like for the First Fleet, fronting up in Sydney in 1788. The message was that Britain and Australia have had an "extraordinary partnership" since that first boat hit the harbour. (Lucky we didn't stop that one.) Abbott went on to provide a word picture of what those first boat people saw. At this point, you might want to shut your eyes, indigenous Australia.
As we look around this glorious city, as we see the extraordinary development, it's hard to think that back in 1788 it was nothing but bush, and that the marines and the convicts and the sailors that straggled off those 12 ships just a few hundred yards from where we are now must have thought they had come almost to the moon.
Everything would have been so strange. Everything would have seemed so extraordinarily basic and raw, and now a city which is one of the most spectacular cities on our globe, and in a country which is as free, as fair and as prosperous as any, a country which is in so many ways the envy of the Earth. So, it's great to be here with you, David, and I hope, as you pay your first visit to Sydney, and you think of what your countrymen did 200-odd years back, you do feel a measure of pride and satisfaction at what has been achieved here in that time.
Look, it's terrific to be talking about infrastructure.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 9.30am AEST
block-time published-time 9.09am AEST
Good morning politicos,
The guns are lined up on the parliamentary forecourt, Tony Abbott and David Cameron have taken a turn around the Sydney Opera House. There must be a big show on today. Yes, you guessed it, the G20 is in town.
The British prime minister, or rather one of his staffers, has kicked off the hoopla with this tweet from the PM2PM Power Walk. No doubting where he is.
With my friend @TonyAbbottMHR on a morning walk in Sydney. Later I'll address the Australian Parliament. pic.twitter.com/jc3iLhRi6u
- David Cameron (@David_Cameron) November 13, 2014
Stay with us for the day. Tony Abbott has already given a cracking speech reflecting on the Australia found by "the marines and sailors and convicts that straggled off those 12 ships". More of that, I promise.
I am ably assisted by Mike Bowers and please join the conversation below or on Twitter. I am @gabriellechan and he is @mpbowers. If the G20 crosses your world, be sure to employ your smartphone on social media and tag me. We will share your experiences but keep it clean people.
Onwards and upwards.
G20: British PM David Cameron addresses Australian parliament - politics live British prime minister delivers speech to special sitting of parliament in Canberra false theguardian.com true http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/11/14/1415927538140/10b5d6b2-37d1-4e87-9fa3-a0cbdab91bc4-140x84.jpeg 7939 true 451859930 false 54652586e4b0867bcfaf64b4 false Gabrielle Chan false 2192564 AUS true 2014-11-17T09:15:00+11:00
LOAD-DATE: November 14, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
329 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 14, 2014 Friday 5:02 AM GMT
block-time published-time 4.00pm AEST Senator;
British prime minister outlines plans to counter extremists, warns against protectionism, describes new threat of 'authoritarian capitalism' and says Britain's economy has turned a corner in his speech to a special sitting of parliament in Canberra. Follow developments live...
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 8230 words
block-time published-time 4.00pm AEST
Senator Scott Ludlam appreciating First Dog.
what even is the #G20 - http://t.co/TebJMiBath@firstdogonmoon dogue is on point today
- Scott Ludlam (@SenatorLudlam) November 14, 2014
block-time published-time 3.54pm AEST
The Green Climate Fund was the thing that the Abbott government really did not want anything to do with. Also from Suzanne and Lenore Taylor's report:
As revealed by Guardian Australia, Australia has been arguing against behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts for G20 leaders to promise to make contributions to the fund.
The prime minister, Tony Abbott, had previously insisted Australia would not make any contributions to it, although it is understood the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which leads Australia's negotiating position in international climate talks, has been considering whether Canberra should make a pledge. Sources said no final decision had been made.
Asked about the fund before last year's UN climate meeting in Warsaw, the prime minister said: "We're not going to be making any contributions to that." It was reported that at one of its first cabinet meetings the Abbott government decided it would make no contributions to the fund that was described as "socialism masquerading as environmentalism".
Abbott disparaged the fund at the time, comparing it to a domestic fund championed by the former Greens leader Bob Brown, which he wants to abolish.
He told the Australian newspaper: "One thing the current government will never do is say one thing at home and a different thing abroad. We are committed to dismantling the Bob Brown bank [the Clean Energy Finance Corporation] at home so it would be impossible for us to support a Bob Brown bank on an international scale."
block-time published-time 3.50pm AEST
US pledges $2.5bn to Green Climate Fund
Suzanne Goldenberg and Lenore Taylor reports :
Barack Obama will make a substantial pledge to a fund to help poor countries fight climate change, only days after his historic carbon pollution deal with China.
In a one-two punch, America plans to pledge at least $2.5bn and as much as $3bn over the next four years to help poor countries invest in clean energy and cope with rising seas and extreme weather, according to those briefed by administration officials.
The financial commitment will be unveiled as world leaders gather for the G20 summit in Brisbane, sending a powerful signal of Obama's determination to act on climate change despite the Republican takeover of Congress in mid-term elections.
The pledge to the Green Climate Fund was seen as critical to UN negotiations for a global climate deal. Developing countries have said they cannot sign on to emissions cuts at climate talks in Lima later this month without the funds.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 3.54pm AEST
block-time published-time 3.44pm AEST
Greens senator Rachel Siewert has taken issue with Tony Abbott's earlier comments (see the 9.27am post) about the state of Australia when the First Fleet arrived. Siewart says Abbott keeps sending mixed messages about European settlement.
The Prime Minister's 'nothing but bush' comments once again ignore the fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have been in Australia for many tens of thousands of years, and that British settlement began a process of discrimination and dispossession.
This is another example of the Prime Minister ignoring the reality of colonisation and the peoples, flourishing culture, languages that were here at the time of European settlement.
block-time published-time 3.36pm AEST
Brisbane Lord Mayor Graham Quirk has held a press conference with a little practical advice for leaders and punters alike, given the weather - along with China and the United States - is conspiring to push climate change onto the G20 agenda.
Q: Lord Mayor, there's forecasts of 39 degree heat on Sunday. Do you have any advice for international visitors about how to cope, how Brisbane people cope, with that sort of heat? Should they go to the beach early in the morning on the Sunday or something?
Lord Mayor Quirk : Well, we have a saying here, which is "slip, slop, slap" and it is about slipping on a hat. But for those of you who haven't bought a hat, I notice that in the welcoming packs out there, that there is an umbrella. So whether it is rainy conditions or pretty hot conditions out there, then umbrellas are there for people's use. And also a cap. So people ought to take up that opportunity.
Meanwhile, AAP reports Queensland water police are investigating the cause of peculiar bubbles in the Brisbane River within the declared G20 zone. Divers and police boats were at the scene near the Queensland Performing Arts Centre at South Bank on Friday afternoon.
Water police are checking to see what the source of the bubbles are, but it's not believed to be suspicious at this stage, a police spokesman said.
SUSPICIOUS BUBBLING PEOPLE THERE IS SUSPICIOUS BUBBLING THERE ARE BUBBLES IN A RIVER MAKE THEM STOP. http://t.co/aAYQq3w91s
- Stilgherrian (@stilgherrian) November 14, 2014
block-time published-time 3.19pm AEST
Karen Middleton of SBS caught the C20.
Civil society NGO reps call for fairness in #G20 growth strategies & discussion on climate change, youth, women pic.twitter.com/likay6i15z
- Karen Middleton (@KarenMMiddleton) November 14, 2014
block-time published-time 3.16pm AEST
I think Vladamir Putin is trolling Tony Abbott.
The Russian embassy gives an explanation in an AAP story:
RUSSIA has for the first time explained the presence of a fleet of warships off north-eastern Australia, saying that the ships are testing their range capability, in case they have to do climate change research in the Antarctic.
The Russian embassy also said the fleet could, if necessary, provide security for Russian President Vladimir Putin, who arrives in Brisbane for the G20 tonight.
block-time published-time 2.56pm AEST
Namaste: Indian PM Narendra Modi.
The diplomatic rockstar of the G20, Indian prime minister Narendra Modi arrived in Brisbane on Friday for the G20 summit, the first Indian PM to visit Australia since Rajiv Gandhi in 1986. Modi, as a new PM, is the man everyone wants to see at this meeting.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrives at Brisbane Airport to attend the G20 Leader's Summit. Photograph: GREG WOOD/AFP/Getty Images
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 2.57pm AEST
block-time published-time 2.47pm AEST
Here is another bit of video for you showing the real Brisbane. Guardian's correspondent Josh Robertson has been very busy.
There are two points to note with this video.
1. Which archbishop got a tattoo?
2. What a terrible organisation we are, here at the Guardian.
block-time published-time 2.41pm AEST
Costello blames rich countries for ebola outbreak
Guardian's Ben Doherty has been at the C20 summit.
Tim Costello, chief executive of World Vision Australia, and chair of the C20, has blamed the world's richest countries for the latest outbreak of Ebola being so deadly.
So far, the current outbreak has killed 5000 people.
Ebola: profound government and market failure. Why wasn't there research into Ebola, it's because we said 'it only breaks out in Africa, and it's patchy, and they don't have a big market because they're poor'. That's why we don't have a vaccine, that's why we don't have a treatment, it's because it didn't affect us. It's a profound government/market failure, because suddenly Ebola's reaching us and we're scrambling. The G20 must have fairness for people who are the poorest.
block-time published-time 2.34pm AEST
The British PM and The Brick.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron meets PUP senator Glenn Lazarus, with Bill Shorten, Sam Dastyari and Dio Wang. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 2.31pm AEST
The C20 is the group representing domestic and international non government organisations and individuals who in social services, environment, women, Indigenous, multicultural and human rights organisations.
Kind of everyone else apart from governments and business.
They are having a press conference now about what they want from the G20.
The c20 has made 18 interrelated recommendations across the areas of inclusive growth and employment, infrastructure, climate change and resource sustainability and governance, including importantly, international taxation reform and transparency.
Chair of the C20, Tim Costello, says civil society has a right to be involved and is now finally embedded in the G20 process - given business has long been involved. He said the G20 cannot talk about growth without working out ways for the (income) growth to flow down to the bottom 20% households of the G20 countries.
It's essentially about people and the high financial and economic architecture which is incomprehensible to most people in G20 nations dramatically affects their lives. Or the non-decisions, if we don't get outcomes, affects their lives also.
The fact that business has always been a significant player at the G20 and we know with governments being broke they're essentially saying to business "Tell us what red tape you want us to cut and deregulation you need so we can get you investing".
block-time published-time 2.16pm AEST
British Prime Minister David Cameron places a poppy in the roll of honour wall as Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott watches. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 2.15pm AEST
British prime minister David Cameron with Australian prime minister Tony Abbott at the roll of honour at the Australian War Memorial. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 2.01pm AEST
Our Brisbane correspondent Josh Robertson reports from Brisbane:
The Australia Tibet Council chose to unfurl its protest against China's human rights record outside Brisbane's controlled security zone for G20 - but still managed to attract a flicker of interest from police.
The activists invited media to a cliff top, riverside park in New Farm this morning to make their point: G20 nations should unite to confront China, which seems to deflect concerns on Tibet whenever the matter is raised one on one.
"In all these bilateral engagements, China seems to have the upper hand, using empty threats of economic and diplomatic penalties, they're able to easily shut down any criticism of Tibet and human rights," the council's Kyinzom Dhongdue said.
Dhongdue said Tibetan hopes that new Chinese president Xi Jinping would be a progressive influence had been dashed, with moves to "criminalise" those activists who burned themselves in protest, who number some 133 under Jinping's watch.
Dhongdue said survivors had been charged as terrorists and their families threatened and spied on.
"It's a vicious cycle of repression and resistence," she said
"To address the human rights crisis in Tibet, governments must come together and stand up to China."
A police car watched the demonstration from a distance but did not intervene.
block-time published-time 1.55pm AEST
I know you love a shirtfront joke so here it is. Entering the international diplomatic lexicon.
block-time published-time 1.52pm AEST
Lunchtime political wrap
British prime minister David Cameron has addressed the Australian parliament, outlining his countries anti-terror laws, highlighting the importance of maintaining democratic values and fighting the extremist narrative. He said countries should resist protectionist urges and he called on leaders to push through an EU-US trade agreement, and also an Australia-EU agreement. Cameron laid a wreath at the Australian War Memorial.
Bill Shorten has called on Tony Abbott to place climate change, global trade, youth unemployment and inclusive growth on the G20 agenda.
Christine Milne said the failure of both Tony Abbott and David Cameron to mention climate change in their speeches to parliament was the "elephant in the room". Bill Shorten did not mention it either.
Now the leaders will be preparing to head to Brisbane for the G20.
block-time published-time 1.40pm AEST
For a news story on the events of this morning, here is Lenore Taylor :
British prime minister David Cameron has linked controversial new foreign fighter and anti-terrorism laws in both Britain and Australia with the common values of freedom and democracy he cited as the "bedrock" of both societies.
In a speech to the Australian parliament, Cameron said the root cause of extremism was not poverty or social exclusion or foreign policy but rather the "extremist narrative" which had to be "rooted out", including by government actions to remove extremist material from the internet.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.40pm AEST
block-time published-time 1.38pm AEST
Milne was asked about David Cameron's comments about the US-China deal, in which he reacted cautiously about the emissions targets because the detail had not been released.
Milne said the US-China deal was the opening round ahead of the UN Paris climate summit and warned Australia would be left behind.
This is significant because it means that China has moved. The United States has moved. It leaves countries like Australia out in the cold. Wrong side of history. And what it signals is that the business of the planet is going to be on low carbon economies. New technology. Innovation. Encouraging entrepreneurial skills. Investment in research. This is where Australia is going to miss out really badly. You know the last thing I want to see isAustralia's best and brightest leave Australia and go overseas because that's where the action is on addressing global warming. Tony Abbott cannot absolutely condemn Australia to being the quarry.
block-time published-time 1.33pm AEST
Christine Milne laughs off the possibility of an European Union-Australian trade deal.
David Cameron first of all has to tell us whether he's even committed to staying in the EU, all the talk from the Tories in the UK has been in response to the UK Independence Party trying to make the case for why the EU isn't so great for Britain. And yet he comes out here to Australia and talks up the potential of an EU/Australia free trade agreement.
block-time published-time 1.28pm AEST
Here is what David Cameron said about trade deals, specifically regarding the EU-US and the EU-Australia.
Let's start this weekend at the G20 and take these arguments head on. Let's see through a EU-US deal that could be the biggest of its kind on the planet.
And while we are at it, let's push for an EU-Australia deal too.
Because if we have the confidence to stay true to our values, we can defeat
the protectionist arguments and secure huge advances in prosperity.
For our nations and for our trading partners all around the world.
block-time published-time 1.26pm AEST
Greens leader Christine Milne is speaking about the huge elephant in the room.
Global warming.
The fact that you could have prime minister Cameron and prime minister Abbott both making their speeches today and no mention of global warming just shows you how out of touch Australia is. Prime Minister Abbott is not going to be able to get pay way with that at the G20. We are living in a global emergency. We have a situation where both China and the US and the EU have now all moved significantly on global warming, and here we have an Australian prime minister who loves coal, wants to stay in last century and be on thewrong side of history.
block-time published-time 1.23pm AEST
The latest boy band...
Good to host @TonyAbbottMHR & @David_Cameron in #Sydney today to discuss the value of investing in infrastructure pic.twitter.com/hlOfvaysfB
- Mike Baird (@mikebairdMP) November 14, 2014
I just want to see them clicking their fingers in unison.
block-time published-time 1.19pm AEST
David Cameron is laying a wreath in the hall of memory at the Australian War Memorial to honour the Unknown Soldier.
block-time published-time 1.18pm AEST
David Cameron addressing the chamber.
David Cameron in the chamber. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia UK Prime Minister David Cameron examines the opposition dispatch box. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 1.07pm AEST
The last question is again to David Cameron on his anti-terror laws, particularly the power to take away British passports from people fighting overseas. The questions are around leaving British citizens effectively stateless. The British journalist also makes the point that even the Australian government has not done that. Our reputation precedes us, apparently. This from Cameron :
Successive governments have come to the view - and I agree with the view - that when you're facing an existential challenge as great as the one we face with Islamist extremists, you need additional powers as well as simply the criminal law. That's why we have these powers to take away someone's passport before they travel, to ban someone from travelling and that's why we've added this additional power to temporarily exclude someone from coming back into the UK, because we believe you need an additional set of powers in order to keep the country safe over and above what the criminal law allows.
Murray and Eric Maxton from Albany in WA who flew in the same Lancaster bomber during WWII meet UK Prime Minister David Cameron, Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull in parliament. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
Happily, Murray and Eric Maxton obviously made it to David Cameron's address. The brothers were invited from Western Australia for the event but there was no air ticket in the invitation.
block-time published-time 12.56pm AEST
Second question on whether Britain's terror laws will maroon British citizens overseas.
Cameron says it is his duty to keep British people safe while Abbott echoes his comments.
Third question on Russia's increasing military assertiveness.
Cameron :
Russian action in Ukraine is unacceptable. We have to be clear about what we're dealing with here. It is a large state bullying a smaller state in Europe and we've seen the consequences of that in the past and we should learn the lessons of history and make sure we don't let it happen again. I don't believe there's a military solution to this, but I think the sanctions are important.
Abbott :
The last thing I ever imagined 12 months or so back was I would be standing at this podium talking about Russian assertiveness and aggression.
Abbott says Russia's involvement in the Mhl disaster through Russian-backed rebels and calls on Russia to:
come clean and atone.
Then we are back to the Tsar.
Interestingly, Russia's economy is declining even as Russia's assertiveness is increasing and one of the points I tried to make to Putin is that Russia would be so much more attractive if it was aspiring to be a superpower for peace and freedom and prosperity, if it was trying to be a superpower for ideas and for values instead of trying to recreate the lost glories of tsarism or the old Soviet Union.
block-time published-time 12.48pm AEST
First question is on climate change and the China-US agreement.
Cameron says he is waiting to see the details of the agreement but he believes all countries should be taking action on climate change.
Abbott says he welcomes the US China deal, given they are the biggest emitters.
China emits some 24% of global carbon dioxide. The United States emits some 15% of global carbon dioxide by contrast. Australia's about 1%, so I think it's important that they do get cracking when it comes to this. I'm very proud of the fact that at the same time as we got rid of the carbon tax which was damaging our economy without helping the environment, we've put in place our direct action policy and I am absolutely confident that our Direct Action policy will deliver our 5% cut on 2000 levels by 2020.
block-time published-time 12.44pm AEST
David Cameron says Britain is growing at 3% a year, and is happy that the G20 should boost growth.
I think you're also right to highlight the importance of free trade and the dangers of protectionism. The other things I'll be hoping to put on the G20 agenda are obviously the continuing issue of making sure we have better tax cooperation between countries so that big companies pay the tax bills they should.
block-time published-time 12.42pm AEST
Tony Abbott lauds Britain's anti terror laws.
David Cameron said in his speech there will be new powers for police at ports to seize passports, to stop suspects travelling and to stop British nationals returning to the UK unless they do so on the government's terms. Therre will also be new rules to prevent airlines that don't comply with no-fly lists or security screening measures from landing in the UK.
block-time published-time 12.39pm AEST
David Cameron and Tony Abbott are in the prime minister's courtyard for a joint press conference.
Abbott says he appreciated Cameron's comments about economics, trade and security.
He looks forward to the G20 and says "you can't have prosperity without security".
block-time published-time 12.31pm AEST
Inspecting the troops.
British Prime Minister David Cameron at a ceremonial welcome on the forecourt of Parliament House. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 12.29pm AEST
Age shall not weary them.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron speaking to Australian veterans in parliament. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 12.26pm AEST
Shorten is asked about the Australia-Russian relationship.
All Australians know that Tony Abbott overreached when he had a brain snap and said he would shirt front Vladimir Putin. We heard the Prime Minister of England make a joke of the use of the word shirt front in his excellent address to theParliament. What really matters here is getting answers for the families of the victims of MH-17.
He says Russia should behave like a "good international citizen" and provide information to the Dutch investigation.
block-time published-time 12.23pm AEST
Bill Shorten :
If Australia wants to walk on the international stage, we can't pick and choose when we want to be international and when we want to be isolationist. We can't just talk about free trade without talking about tackling youth unemployment. We can't talk about security alone in northern Iraq and then ignore the challenge of Ebola in West Africa. We most certainly need to address climate change as the presidents of China and the United States have done so in such a dramatic fashion this week. Make no mistake, when Tony Abbott says he only wants to concentrate on economic issues what we see is a stubborn isolationist who won't admit climate change is an economic issue.
block-time published-time 12.21pm AEST
Bill Shorten is giving a press conference now. Shorten says Australia needs to be a nation of vision and confidence. He says the G20 is a test of leadership for Tony Abbott. He called on the prime minister to push:
climate change
inclusive growth
pushing global trade
and tackling youth unemployment.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.21pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.17pm AEST
Downer in the House.
Australian High Commissioner to the UK and former (Liberal) foreign minister Alexander Downer in the chamber. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 12.15pm AEST
Cameron is ushered into parliament.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron is led into the chamber by the Usher of the Black Rod. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 12.11pm AEST
"Strewth", said Cameron.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron in Parliament House. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
Trying a little Australian slang.
block-time published-time 12.09pm AEST
One more quote from Bill Shorten :
Today, the War Memorial salutes the memory of Australians who have served our nation in every conflict and peacekeeping operation. So often they have served, fought, fallen, side by side with British soldiers.
From the open veldt of South Africa, to the skies over Europe, most recently in the mountains of Afghanistan and the skies over Mesopotamia, our countries have forged an unbreakable bond of courage and sacrifice - of mutual respect and regard.
Their spirit, their bravery, their shared sense of duty and honour unites our countries in history forever.
block-time published-time 12.07pm AEST
Bill Shorten :
Britain has joined Europe and Australia has found our place in Asia. We sing our own anthems, we celebrate our own cultures.We enjoy a genuine exchange in education, art, music, cinema, literature and fashion.
And whether it is the Ashes, rugby, netball, the Olympics, the Paralympics or the Commonwealth games, we relish an international sporting rivalry as old as any on earth.
Our sledging can sometimes surprise the uninitiated - but it reflects the depth of our friendship - we can dish it out because we know we will get it back. We are both good losers - and fantastic winners.
block-time published-time 12.06pm AEST
Bill Shorten echoed a line of Tony Abbott's with a twist:
The deep and abiding friendship between our nations has evolved and matured. Australia no longer looks to Britain out of need, or dependence - we no longer seek to imitate, or echo. Instead we greet each other as equals and peers - as partners in the world.
block-time published-time 12.02pm AEST
Let me back track to Bill Shorten now with some funny historical anecdotes.
Prime Minister, the first of your predecessors to visit our country did so before Federation - and before he was even a Member of Parliament.
Lord Salisbury, the Conservative icon and one of the great architects of the Empire, visited the colonies as a young man in the 1850s.
Two observations from his lordships journal stand out:
One, his lordship reported there was " less crime than expected".
Two, his lordship reported that the " customary form of address was: mate''.
Just over a hundred years later, Harold MacMillan became the first Prime Minister to experience Australian hospitality whilst in office.
As he recalled:
As I drove into Sydney on my first arrival there, I was amazed to see the great numbers of people in the streets and issuing from all houses.
A huge crowd had turned out to welcome me, far greater, I thought, than any similar crowd could ever be in the old country, and I was deeply touched.
Then someone told me the truth. It was six o'clock ...[and the pubs were closing].
Prime Minister, you will be relieved to hear that the days of the six o'clock swill and early closing are long gone.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.03pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.58am AEST
David Cameron finishes with the point that democracies always seem combative, in a nod - I thought - to the disillusionment with modern politics in the first world.
Here in this Chamber and in the House of Commons back in Britain, we let the brickbats fly. We sometimes say some pretty rude things to each other. We trade insults and put-downs. Not everyone quite gets it.
His point was that for all our flaws and the barbs traded in modern political arena, the values that underpin those societies are strong.
Never forget that we live in countries where the press is free, the law is fair, the right to redress universally available, property rights universally enforceable, the freedom of speech the foundation of our democracy. And let's remember that these things - these incredible values we share - are not just what make our societies strong; they make our economies strong too.
block-time published-time 11.53am AEST
After outlining the anti-terror laws, David Cameron lauds a free press:
Our free and fearless press shines a light wherever it is needed, without fear or favour. Of course that can make life difficult - but it helps drive out the corruption that destroys so many countries. Our governments lose cases in court, because we don't control the courts. But that's why people invest in our countries because they have property rights, and they know that they can get redress from the rule of law and that we have judges who are honest and not on the make.
block-time published-time 11.52am AEST
David Cameron :
Finally, there's a more insipient creeping threat to our values that I want to mention. And it comes from those who say that we will be outcompeted and outgunned by countries that believe there is a short cut to success, a new model of authoritarian capitalism that is unencumbered by the values and restrictions we impose on ourselves. In particular, an approach that is free from the accountability of real democracy and the rule of law. I say: we should have the confidence to reject this view and stay true to our values.
block-time published-time 11.50am AEST
David Cameron warns against protectionism, saying it leads to more jobs and higher wages.
One of the greatest threats to our values and to our success is the spectre of protectionism. Too many people still seem to believe that trade is some sort of zero sum game.
block-time published-time 11.47am AEST
David Cameron :
As we confront this extremism together, let us have faith in the appeal of what our modern societies can offer. Yes, the battles for equality of opportunity for every person of every race and creed are not yet fully won but today your country and my country are places where people can take part, can have their say, can achieve their dreams, places where people feel free to say, "Yes, I'm a Muslim. I'm a Hindu, I'm a Christian but I'm also proud to be a Briton or an Australian too." And that sense of identity, that voice, that stake in society all come directly from standing up for values and our beliefs in open economies and open societies.
block-time published-time 11.45am AEST
Cameron talks about the British economy turning the corner and pays tribute to John Howard and Gough Whitlam.
He says Australia and Britain have always stood firm together because they share the same values.
He briefly outlines Britain's anti-terror laws, but then talks about how to address the root cause of terrorism, the extremist narrative.
As we do so, we must work with the overwhelming majority of Muslims who abhor the twisted narrative that has seduced some of our people. We must continue to celebrate Islam as a great world religion of peace.
He says the internet is presenting a challenge in the fight against the extremist narrative. He says government has a role to ensure it does not become an ungoverned space.
In the UK we are pushing (internet companies) to do more include strengthening filters, improving reporting mechanisms and being more proactive in taking down this harmful material.
block-time published-time 11.39am AEST
David Cameron thanks Australia for its help on ebola: "Typical Australia, always there with action not words."
But for a while our political relationship fell into a state of what William Hague called benign neglect. It's extraordinary to think that no British Foreign Secretary had visited Australia in nearly 20 years. I was determined to change that. Now you've had three visits in as many years and a British Prime Minister twice as well. You might start to think we're beginning to over-do it.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.58pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.36am AEST
Cameron talked about Australia's willingness to help on the world stage and cracks a shirtfront joke.
Only last month your Foreign Minister strode across the room towards me at a summit in Italy. I wondered for a moment whether I was heading for what I'm told we now need to call a shirtfronting.
block-time published-time 11.35am AEST
David Cameron acknowledges the traditional owners of the country. (Abbott did not. Shorten did).
Every chapter of Australia's story has been inspiring. I think of your Indigenous culture with roots stretching back millennia and I feel pride that Aboriginal Australians are now studying at Oxford and Cambridge and one of those scholars, Leila Smith, is here with us today.
block-time published-time 11.34am AEST
Cameron plays tribute to Australian diggers and recalls going to Anzac Cove as a younger man.
We will never forget the thousands of Australian troops who stoodand fought and fell from Lone Pine to the Somme. I especially think of those who fell in Gallipoli which I visited as a young man, surrounded by Aussies and Kiwis the same age as me. We joked as we took the boat across the Straits. But aswe landed and saw that extraordinary memorial, we all fell silent, moved beyond words by what our forefathers had done together.
block-time published-time 11.32am AEST
Cameron addresses Australian parliament.
David Cameron's address.
Coming here is like visiting family, says Cameron.
He also goes to the rivalry mentioned by Shorten.
There's our rivalries on and off the playing field, our fondness for teasing each other's habits and phrases, of course we Poms are known for our bluntness and we never really get your tendancy to beat around the bush and not say what you really mean. We have enormous affection for each other. We may live on opposite sides of the planet but it is hard to think of another country to which theBritish people feel so instinctively close.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.58pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.30am AEST
Bill Shorten is speaking now to echo the old friendship point and harks back to his ancestors. His is a more earthy speech, touching on the rivalry between the two countries but ultimately the unity between the two cultures.
I particularly want to pay a belated tribute to the British justice system because without your strong sentencing laws, some of my mother's Irish ancestors would never have come to Australia.
block-time published-time 11.27am AEST
Abbott finally quotes writer Clive James to note the integral part Britain has played in Australia's development.
He presents Australia and Britain as very close and similar nations.
After two centuries in which both of us have constantly adapted to our own changing and different circumstances, it's remarkable how similar we've become.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.57pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.24am AEST
Tony Abbott makes a regular point about Australia's place in Asia not diminishing the relationship with Britain.
Of course Australia is located in the Indo-Pacific but our place is wherever there is an interest to advance, a citizen to protect, a value to uphold or a friend to encourage. To a similar debate in Britain, Prime Minister Cameron has brought the same robust common sense. Britain is a European country with a global role. And like people, countries don't make new friends by losing old ones and they don't deepen some relationships by diminishing others.
block-time published-time 11.22am AEST
Abbott makes the point Australia and Britain are still fighting together in the war against Islamic State:
History matters because it helps us to know who we are and where we're going. It helps us to know what's important and who can be relied upon. It shapes us but it should never control us.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.59am AEST
block-time published-time 11.20am AEST
Tony Abbott remembers the Australian and British soldiers who died during wartime, fighting with each other. A number of veterans are in the chamber.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.57pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.19am AEST
Abbott:
And what would this world be if Britain had not settled the territory that Captain Cook earlier called NSW? Long ago, Madam Speaker, Australians ceased to regard Britain as the mother country but we are still family. The relationship between Britain and Australia has changed beyond recognition but it's still important and we still matter to each other.
block-time published-time 11.18am AEST
Abbott:
There is so much that Britain has given to us. There's so much, indeed, that Britain has given to everyone. Parliamentary democracy, the common law, constitutional monarchy, and English, the world's first or second language.
Abbot mentions Shakespeare, The Beatles, the advances of the first industrial revolution, and the determination of Churchill?
block-time published-time 11.16am AEST
Tony Abbott:
The first Christian sermon preached in this country took as its text "what shall I render unto the Lord for all his blessings towards me?" This indeed has always characterised us. Gratitude for what we have and a fierce determination to build on it. Modern Australia has an Aboriginal heritage, a British foundation and a multicultural character.
block-time published-time 11.15am AEST
Tony Abbott is welcoming David Cameron and giving a history lesson to build on the British-Australian relationship.
Of those on the First Fleet, the very best that could be said of them was that they had been chosen by the finest judges in England.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.56pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.14am AEST
So it's pretty squashy in parliament and the public galleries are full.
David Cameron is announced. The central chamber doors open and Cameron is introduced to the house and to applause and a standing ovation.
block-time published-time 11.11am AEST
The Speaker Bronwyn Bishop is on her feet, opening parliament.
block-time published-time 11.04am AEST
Here is a bit of smoke from the forecourt, via Karen Barlow of SBS.
Captured the moment one of those enormous guns fired out the front parliament! pic.twitter.com/g5xURYQWsT
- Karen Barlow (@KJBar) November 14, 2014
block-time published-time 11.01am AEST
From the Aboriginal deaths in custody protest in Brisbane:
Crowd swelled to about 300 at the Aboriginal deaths in custody protest at #G20Brisbanepic.twitter.com/L9WiB4qykE
- Mark Di Stefano (@MarkDiStef) November 13, 2014
block-time published-time 10.56am AEST
David Cameron's address is coming up as the independent legal observers arrive in Brisbane.
There are six "independent legal observers" in white singlets hovering on the outside of the #G20Brisbane protest pic.twitter.com/Hp7OnOHAUN
- Mark Di Stefano (@MarkDiStef) November 13, 2014
block-time published-time 10.52am AEST
Mark Di Stefano for Buzzfeed is tweeting from the G20 protests regarding Aboriginal deaths in custody.
At "Aboriginal deaths in custody" protest there about as many journalists as protestors at the moment #G20Brisbanepic.twitter.com/CoZOkdOPzB
- Mark Di Stefano (@MarkDiStef) November 13, 2014
block-time published-time 10.49am AEST
That's it for the welcome ceremony. David Cameron is in the House to sign the visitors' book. DC woz 'ere. There's a warm leaders' handshake for the cameras and then more official party stuff.
block-time published-time 10.47am AEST
Now the Australian anthem, Advance Australia Fair. You li'l beauty rich and rare.
block-time published-time 10.45am AEST
David Cameron is meeting the official party, including Speaker Bronwyn Bishop, Labor deputy leader Tanya Plibersek, Alexander Downer and others.
Now stand up for God Save the Queen please.
block-time published-time 10.42am AEST
David Cameron is now inspecting Australia's federation guard to a jaunty little tune, the kind you would hear as the troops were making merry in Guns of Navarone.
block-time published-time 10.37am AEST
David Cameron has arrived at parliament in a white car with a British flag on the front as the seagulls whirl through the forecourt over head. The guns are going, in their customary salute.
block-time published-time 10.35am AEST
Who wants to do fill in commentary? On ABC24, former advisor to Tony Blair, Nick Rowley is asked to explain the similarities between Cameron and Abbott.
Well...they are both men...
He did go on to make some very salient points, to be fair.
block-time published-time 10.33am AEST
Meanwhile, in Brisbane, the locals have vanished.
Friday morning, and parts of the #Brisbane CBD are a ghost town #G20#G20Brisbanepic.twitter.com/UPClMSwHfU
- Adam Todd (@_AdamTodd) November 13, 2014
block-time published-time 10.30am AEST
Tony Abbott has arrived in the parliamentary forecourt. He is now waiting for David Cameron, who is in a different car.
block-time published-time 10.26am AEST
The drums have started out the front. Australian flags are being waved, the anthem is played. A soldier is yelling very loudly.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.27am AEST
block-time published-time 10.26am AEST
Tony Abbott from this morning on the British-Australian relationship.
It's a relationship between, if not quite equals, certainly peers, and it is as warm as, as intimate, and as important as any relationship on this eTarth.
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and David Cameron. Photograph: DAN HIMBRECHTS/AAPIMAGE
He was discussing economic size.
block-time published-time 10.14am AEST
Former Australian Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser has some advice for his successor Tony Abbott.
Coal versus climate in Australia. Climate change must be discussed if meeting is to have relevance http://t.co/8YdQFA2zg3
- Malcolm Fraser (@MalcolmFraser12) November 12, 2014
block-time published-time 10.08am AEST
Tony Abbott was not to be outdone. He was talking up the prospects of foreign investment, notably British foreign investment.
We will give this country the muscle and the sinew that it needs to advance into the future and we will do it in partnership with investors from Britain and elsewhere. There is a long history of British investment in Australia. After the US, Britain is by far the biggest investor in this country. It's been a very steady consistent flow of British investment into this country ever since the very beginning of settlement here in 1788.
block-time published-time 10.06am AEST
Arrrr me hearties. David Cameron has found his buccaneering spirit. It wasn't only Tony Abbott spruiking his government's achievements.
No doubt after some difficult years Britain is back. Our economy is now the fastest growing of any G7 countries, we're going to do plus 3% this year. We've seen, since I've been PM, 2 million private sector jobs created, that is more jobs created than in the rest of the European Union put together. We've seen some real progress in our country. 400,000 more businesses operating in Britain and a sense that our economy is really on the move. Lots of challenges because we're in a neighbourhood that doesn't have a huge amount of growth and lots of things we need to crack but the British economy is back. We have refound that buccaneering trading spirit and we're linking ourselves up with all of the fastest growing parts of the world.
block-time published-time 10.02am AEST
While we are limbering up for David Cameron's arrival, you may like to do a primer on what the G20 hopes to achieve. Lenore Taylor has written a piece to get you up to speed on the hopes and dreams of the G20 and whether they will get there:
In 2008 when the global economy was in crisis, the G20 stepped up. But in the six years since it has become better known for the protests it attracts than the progress it has made on its central goals of promoting growth and strengthening international economic institutions.
So when the leaders meet again this weekend in Brisbane, Australia, they will be under pressure to achieve something tangible for the gathering to prove its relevance. But it is not at all clear that the "announceables" - the outcomes pre-negotiated by officials after a full year of meetings - will be sufficient to achieve that goal.
block-time published-time 9.56am AEST
Let's put this story under the theme, my gun is bigger than yours.
Brisbane's Courier Mail is reporting that another Australian ship has been sent to "intercept" the Russian fleet heading our way.
A third Australian warship has been dispatched to intercept a Russian flotilla steaming towards the G20 summit in Brisbane and a fourth navy vessel is ready to divert to the area. The replenishment ship HMAS Sirius is heading into the Coral Sea to support the frigates HMAS Parramatta and HMAS Stuart and the frigate HMAS Sydney is preparing to divert from an exercise in New Zealand to join the mission, according to a government source.
News' national defence writer Ian McPhedran "understands that the government also asked the Navy about the possibility of a Collins Class submarine joining the mission but was told that the nearest boat was in Perth and would not be able to reach the area until well after the G20 summit was over".
But there are anti-submarine warfare choppers on the Australian ships but don't panic. Defence sources said a Russian submarine is not likely to be in the area.
block-time published-time 9.45am AEST
Business is Gr8 Mate.
Talking to business leaders in Sydney about our long-term economic plan, which is helping the UK grow in tough times. pic.twitter.com/edbCJTqGKN
- David Cameron (@David_Cameron) November 13, 2014
block-time published-time 9.42am AEST
Summary of morning events for David Cameron
Here is a rundown, just in case you need to adjust your day for the events of the parliament.
David Cameron and Tony Abbott is about to arrive in Canberra, due at 10am.
There will be a ceremonial welcome in the forecourt of parliament at 10.30am and then he will sign the visitors book shortly before 11am. He will address the house at 11.10am, with the senators squashing in to the green benches. Then the two leaders will give a joint press conference before speeding off to the Australian War Memorial to lay a wreath.
block-time published-time 9.35am AEST
Head in the sand on climate change
As world leaders arrive at the G20 Summit in Brisbane, more than 400 people buried their heads in the sand at Bondi Beach in Sydney. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
Bowers was scouting around Sydney yesterday in preparation for the G20 and caught these people, 400 of them, protesting about Australia's stance on climate change. They buried their heads in the sand, bums in the air. With the surfboards, it seems a very Australian protest.
block-time published-time 9.27am AEST
After the walk, Tony Abbott and David Cameron had a business breakfast. The theme was infrastructure, in keeping with Abbott's election slogans, the infrastructure of the 21st century. Abbott showed his writerly tendencies in imagining what it was like for the First Fleet, fronting up in Sydney in 1788. The message was that Britain and Australia have had an "extraordinary partnership" since that first boat hit the harbour. (Lucky we didn't stop that one.) Abbott went on to provide a word picture of what those first boat people saw. At this point, you might want to shut your eyes, indigenous Australia.
As we look around this glorious city, as we see the extraordinary development, it's hard to think that back in 1788 it was nothing but bush, and that the marines and the convicts and the sailors that straggled off those 12 ships just a few hundred yards from where we are now must have thought they had come almost to the moon.
Everything would have been so strange. Everything would have seemed so extraordinarily basic and raw, and now a city which is one of the most spectacular cities on our globe, and in a country which is as free, as fair and as prosperous as any, a country which is in so many ways the envy of the Earth. So, it's great to be here with you, David, and I hope, as you pay your first visit to Sydney, and you think of what your countrymen did 200-odd years back, you do feel a measure of pride and satisfaction at what has been achieved here in that time.
Look, it's terrific to be talking about infrastructure.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 9.30am AEST
block-time published-time 9.09am AEST
Good morning politicos,
The guns are lined up on the parliamentary forecourt, Tony Abbott and David Cameron have taken a turn around the Sydney Opera House. There must be a big show on today. Yes, you guessed it, the G20 is in town.
The British prime minister, or rather one of his staffers, has kicked off the hoopla with this tweet from the PM2PM Power Walk. No doubting where he is.
With my friend @TonyAbbottMHR on a morning walk in Sydney. Later I'll address the Australian Parliament. pic.twitter.com/jc3iLhRi6u
- David Cameron (@David_Cameron) November 13, 2014
Stay with us for the day. Tony Abbott has already given a cracking speech reflecting on the Australia found by "the marines and sailors and convicts that straggled off those 12 ships". More of that, I promise.
I am ably assisted by Mike Bowers and please join the conversation below or on Twitter. I am @gabriellechan and he is @mpbowers. If the G20 crosses your world, be sure to employ your smartphone on social media and tag me. We will share your experiences but keep it clean people.
Onwards and upwards.
G20: British PM David Cameron addresses Australian parliament - politics live British prime minister delivers speech to special sitting of parliament in Canberra false theguardian.com true http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/11/14/1415927538140/10b5d6b2-37d1-4e87-9fa3-a0cbdab91bc4-140x84.jpeg 7700 true 451859930 false 54652586e4b0867bcfaf64b4 false Gabrielle Chan false 2192564 AUS true 2014-11-17T09:15:00+11:00
LOAD-DATE: November 14, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
330 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 14, 2014 Friday 4:42 AM GMT
Barack Obama to pledge at least $2.5bn to help poor countries fight climate change;
Exclusive: Green Climate Fund commitment to be unveiled as leaders gather for G20 summit in hope of spurring others to stump up cash in a move likely to embarrass the host nation, Australia
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1246 words
Barack Obama will make a substantial pledge to a fund to help poor countries fight climate change, only days after his historic carbon pollution deal with China.
In a one-two punch, America plans to pledge at least $2.5bn and as much as $3bn over the next four years to help poor countries invest in clean energy and cope with rising seas and extreme weather, according to those briefed by administration officials.
The financial commitment will be unveiled as world leaders gather for the G20 summit in Brisbane, sending a powerful signal of Obama's determination to act on climate change despite the Republican takeover of Congress in mid-term elections.
The pledge to the Green Climate Fund was seen as critical to UN negotiations for a global climate deal. Developing countries have said they cannot sign on to emissions cuts at climate talks in Lima later this month without the funds.
Analysts said the $2.5bn figure under discussion before the Brisbane summit was just about enough to demonstrate that the US was willing to put up the cash.
"I think it's a good signal for unlocking the negotiations for Paris in 2015," said Alex Doukas, an international climate policy analyst at the World Resources Institute. Congress will still have to authorise the funds. But some analysts argue that it will be difficult for Republicans to cut out climate finance entirely.
The pledge from Obama could also help spur Britain and other countries to pay into a fund that so far has raised just under $3bn, well short of its initial $10bn target.
Jake Schmidt, who follows international climate negotiations for the Natural Resources Defence Council, said: "He is trying to use the G20 as a way to put pressure bilaterally and otherwise for countries to put their targets and their financing on the table."
There were early signs the strategy was paying off. The Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, was expected to announce a pledge of up to $1.5bn to the fund at the Brisbane summit, press reports said.
The financial commitments from the US and Japan are in strong contrast with Canada's and Australia's positions, which have said they will not contribute to the climate fund.
Indeed the announcement could again embarrass the G20 host country, Australia, which has been fiercely resisting climate change discussions distracting from its desired focus on "economic growth and jobs".
The Australian government was caught off guard when Obama and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping unveiled climate pledges on the eve of the summit.
As revealed by Guardian Australia, Australia has been arguing against behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts for G20 leaders to promise to make contributions to the fund.
The prime minister, Tony Abbott, had previously insisted Australia would not make any contributions to it, although it is understood the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which leads Australia's negotiating position in international climate talks, has been considering whether Canberra should make a pledge. Sources said no final decision had been made.
Asked about the fund before last year's UN climate meeting in Warsaw, the prime minister said: "We're not going to be making any contributions to that." It was reported that at one of its first cabinet meetings the Abbott government decided it would make no contributions to the fund that was described as "socialism masquerading as environmentalism".
Abbott disparaged the fund at the time, comparing it to a domestic fund championed by the former Greens leader Bob Brown, which he wants to abolish.
He told the Australian newspaper: "One thing the current government will never do is say one thing at home and a different thing abroad. We are committed to dismantling the Bob Brown bank [the Clean Energy Finance Corporation] at home so it would be impossible for us to support a Bob Brown bank on an international scale."
The government also pointedly dissented from support for the fund in a communique from last November's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting - a stance backed by Canada.
The Green Climate Fund aims to help poorer countries cut their emissions and prepare for the impact of climate change, and is seen as critical to securing developing-nation support for a successful deal on reducing emissions at the UN meeting in Paris next year.
More than $2.8bn had been pledged before the US commitment - including $1bn by France and almost $1bn by Germany. More pledges are expected at a special "pledging" conference in Berlin on 20 November. Britain has said it will make a "strong" contribution at that meeting.
Federal ministers raised strong objections to Australia's commitment to the Green Climate Fund during the cabinet discussion before Warsaw, a meeting to which Australia controversially declined to send the environment minister, Greg Hunt, or any ministerial representative. (Foreign minister Julie Bishop will be attending this year's meeting in Lima.)
In opposition Bishop raised strong concerns that money from the foreign aid budget was being directed towards the climate change fund. "Climate change funding should not be disguised as foreign aid funding," she said, accusing the former government of introducing the now-repealed carbon tax to pay for contributions to the fund.
"This is a tax to gather revenue to redistribute it around the economy and to buy themselves some brownie points at the United Nations," she said in 2011.
A showdown over the Green Climate Fund had been looming for next week, when a pledging conference was scheduled in Berlin.
However, it appears that Obama wanted to get out ahead of other countries - and focus the attention of G20 countries more firmly on climate change.
"He is seizing the opportunities that come his way to demonstrate to the world that the US is not going to backtrack on the progress he has made for the last five years, and that he is firmly committed to getting a strong deal in Paris," said Pete Ogden, a former White House adviser who is now the international climate and energy director at the Centre for American Progress.
"I think this is certainly about him showing that he is making no apologies for helping to build up an effective domestic climate policy and he is making no apologies for wanting to help lead global efforts to combat climate change. People around the world look at us and see what happened in the mid-terms. If they had any reason for concern that he would be diminished, I think the evidence of the last couple of days is going to put that to rest."
Heather Coleman, a climate analyst at Oxfam, said the US-China deal earlier in the week had helped lay the groundwork for Obama to offer a pledge on climate finance.
"Now that we have demonstrated that China is willing to move forward it does make it more palatable for the US to put more money on the table for international climate finance which everyone knows is the essential key to unlocking negotiations. Without finance you just don't get a global climate deal," she said.
The ballpark figure of $2.5bn to $3bn is not that much higher than the $2bn pledged to climate finance by George Bush in 2008.
"Ultimately this is money that will be appropriate by Congress, but the fact is for decades Congress has been investing in multilateral funds that support the efforts of countries to cut emissions and build cleaner economies," Ogden said.
Additional reporting by Lenore Taylor, Guardian Australia political editor
LOAD-DATE: November 14, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
331 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 14, 2014 Friday 3:57 AM GMT
block-time published-time 2.56pm AEST Namaste:;
British prime minister outlines plans to counter extremists, warns against protectionism, describes new threat of 'authoritarian capitalism' and says Britain's economy has turned a corner in his speech to a special sitting of parliament in Canberra. Follow developments live...
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 7252 words
block-time published-time 2.56pm AEST
Namaste: Indian PM Narendra Modi.
The diplomatic rockstar of the G20, Indian prime minister Narendra Modi arrived in Brisbane on Friday for the G20 summit, the first Indian PM to visit Australia since Rajiv Gandhi in 1986. Modi, as a new PM, is the man everyone wants to see at this meeting.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrives at Brisbane Airport to attend the G20 Leader's Summit. Photograph: GREG WOOD/AFP/Getty Images
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 2.57pm AEST
block-time published-time 2.47pm AEST
Here is another bit of video for you showing the real Brisbane. Guardian's correspondent Josh Robertson has been very busy.
There are two points to note with this video.
1. Which archbishop got a tattoo?
2. What a terrible organisation we are, here at the Guardian.
block-time published-time 2.41pm AEST
Costello blames rich countries for ebola outbreak
Guardian's Ben Doherty has been at the C20 summit.
Tim Costello, chief executive of World Vision Australia, and chair of the C20, has blamed the world's richest countries for the latest outbreak of Ebola being so deadly.
So far, the current outbreak has killed 5000 people.
Ebola: profound government and market failure. Why wasn't there research into Ebola, it's because we said 'it only breaks out in Africa, and it's patchy, and they don't have a big market because they're poor'. That's why we don't have a vaccine, that's why we don't have a treatment, it's because it didn't affect us. It's a profound government/market failure, because suddenly Ebola's reaching us and we're scrambling. The G20 must have fairness for people who are the poorest.
block-time published-time 2.34pm AEST
The British PM and The Brick.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron meets PUP senator Glenn Lazarus, with Bill Shorten, Sam Dastyari and Dio Wang. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 2.31pm AEST
The C20 is the group representing domestic and international non government organisations and individuals who in social services, environment, women, Indigenous, multicultural and human rights organisations.
Kind of everyone else apart from governments and business.
They are having a press conference now about what they want from the G20.
The c20 has made 18 interrelated recommendations across the areas of inclusive growth and employment, infrastructure, climate change and resource sustainability and governance, including importantly, international taxation reform and transparency.
Chair of the C20, Tim Costello, says civil society has a right to be involved and is now finally embedded in the G20 process - given business has long been involved. He said the G20 cannot talk about growth without working out ways for the (income) growth to flow down to the bottom 20% households of the G20 countries.
It's essentially about people and the high financial and economic architecture which is incomprehensible to most people in G20 nations dramatically affects their lives. Or the non-decisions, if we don't get outcomes, affects their lives also.
The fact that business has always been a significant player at the G20 and we know with governments being broke they're essentially saying to business "Tell us what red tape you want us to cut and deregulation you need so we can get you investing".
block-time published-time 2.16pm AEST
British Prime Minister David Cameron places a poppy in the roll of honour wall as Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott watches. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 2.15pm AEST
British prime minister David Cameron with Australian prime minister Tony Abbott at the roll of honour at the Australian War Memorial. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 2.01pm AEST
Our Brisbane correspondent Josh Robertson reports from Brisbane:
The Australia Tibet Council chose to unfurl its protest against China's human rights record outside Brisbane's controlled security zone for G20 - but still managed to attract a flicker of interest from police.
The activists invited media to a cliff top, riverside park in New Farm this morning to make their point: G20 nations should unite to confront China, which seems to deflect concerns on Tibet whenever the matter is raised one on one.
"In all these bilateral engagements, China seems to have the upper hand, using empty threats of economic and diplomatic penalties, they're able to easily shut down any criticism of Tibet and human rights," the council's Kyinzom Dhongdue said.
Dhongdue said Tibetan hopes that new Chinese president Xi Jinping would be a progressive influence had been dashed, with moves to "criminalise" those activists who burned themselves in protest, who number some 133 under Jinping's watch.
Dhongdue said survivors had been charged as terrorists and their families threatened and spied on.
"It's a vicious cycle of repression and resistence," she said
"To address the human rights crisis in Tibet, governments must come together and stand up to China."
A police car watched the demonstration from a distance but did not intervene.
block-time published-time 1.55pm AEST
I know you love a shirtfront joke so here it is. Entering the international diplomatic lexicon.
block-time published-time 1.52pm AEST
Lunchtime political wrap
British prime minister David Cameron has addressed the Australian parliament, outlining his countries anti-terror laws, highlighting the importance of maintaining democratic values and fighting the extremist narrative. He said countries should resist protectionist urges and he called on leaders to push through an EU-US trade agreement, and also an Australia-EU agreement. Cameron laid a wreath at the Australian War Memorial.
Bill Shorten has called on Tony Abbott to place climate change, global trade, youth unemployment and inclusive growth on the G20 agenda.
Christine Milne said the failure of both Tony Abbott and David Cameron to mention climate change in their speeches to parliament was the "elephant in the room". Bill Shorten did not mention it either.
Now the leaders will be preparing to head to Brisbane for the G20.
block-time published-time 1.40pm AEST
For a news story on the events of this morning, here is Lenore Taylor :
British prime minister David Cameron has linked controversial new foreign fighter and anti-terrorism laws in both Britain and Australia with the common values of freedom and democracy he cited as the "bedrock" of both societies.
In a speech to the Australian parliament, Cameron said the root cause of extremism was not poverty or social exclusion or foreign policy but rather the "extremist narrative" which had to be "rooted out", including by government actions to remove extremist material from the internet.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.40pm AEST
block-time published-time 1.38pm AEST
Milne was asked about David Cameron's comments about the US-China deal, in which he reacted cautiously about the emissions targets because the detail had not been released.
Milne said the US-China deal was the opening round ahead of the UN Paris climate summit and warned Australia would be left behind.
This is significant because it means that China has moved. The United States has moved. It leaves countries like Australia out in the cold. Wrong side of history. And what it signals is that the business of the planet is going to be on low carbon economies. New technology. Innovation. Encouraging entrepreneurial skills. Investment in research. This is where Australia is going to miss out really badly. You know the last thing I want to see isAustralia's best and brightest leave Australia and go overseas because that's where the action is on addressing global warming. Tony Abbott cannot absolutely condemn Australia to being the quarry.
block-time published-time 1.33pm AEST
Christine Milne laughs off the possibility of an European Union-Australian trade deal.
David Cameron first of all has to tell us whether he's even committed to staying in the EU, all the talk from the Tories in the UK has been in response to the UK Independence Party trying to make the case for why the EU isn't so great for Britain. And yet he comes out here to Australia and talks up the potential of an EU/Australia free trade agreement.
block-time published-time 1.28pm AEST
Here is what David Cameron said about trade deals, specifically regarding the EU-US and the EU-Australia.
Let's start this weekend at the G20 and take these arguments head on. Let's see through a EU-US deal that could be the biggest of its kind on the planet.
And while we are at it, let's push for an EU-Australia deal too.
Because if we have the confidence to stay true to our values, we can defeat
the protectionist arguments and secure huge advances in prosperity.
For our nations and for our trading partners all around the world.
block-time published-time 1.26pm AEST
Greens leader Christine Milne is speaking about the huge elephant in the room.
Global warming.
The fact that you could have prime minister Cameron and prime minister Abbott both making their speeches today and no mention of global warming just shows you how out of touch Australia is. Prime Minister Abbott is not going to be able to get pay way with that at the G20. We are living in a global emergency. We have a situation where both China and the US and the EU have now all moved significantly on global warming, and here we have an Australian prime minister who loves coal, wants to stay in last century and be on thewrong side of history.
block-time published-time 1.23pm AEST
The latest boy band...
Good to host @TonyAbbottMHR & @David_Cameron in #Sydney today to discuss the value of investing in infrastructure pic.twitter.com/hlOfvaysfB
- Mike Baird (@mikebairdMP) November 14, 2014
I just want to see them clicking their fingers in unison.
block-time published-time 1.19pm AEST
David Cameron is laying a wreath in the hall of memory at the Australian War Memorial to honour the Unknown Soldier.
block-time published-time 1.18pm AEST
David Cameron addressing the chamber.
David Cameron in the chamber. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia UK Prime Minister David Cameron examines the opposition dispatch box. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 1.07pm AEST
The last question is again to David Cameron on his anti-terror laws, particularly the power to take away British passports from people fighting overseas. The questions are around leaving British citizens effectively stateless. The British journalist also makes the point that even the Australian government has not done that. Our reputation precedes us, apparently. This from Cameron :
Successive governments have come to the view - and I agree with the view - that when you're facing an existential challenge as great as the one we face with Islamist extremists, you need additional powers as well as simply the criminal law. That's why we have these powers to take away someone's passport before they travel, to ban someone from travelling and that's why we've added this additional power to temporarily exclude someone from coming back into the UK, because we believe you need an additional set of powers in order to keep the country safe over and above what the criminal law allows.
Murray and Eric Maxton from Albany in WA who flew in the same Lancaster bomber during WWII meet UK Prime Minister David Cameron, Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull in parliament. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
Happily, Murray and Eric Maxton obviously made it to David Cameron's address. The brothers were invited from Western Australia for the event but there was no air ticket in the invitation.
block-time published-time 12.56pm AEST
Second question on whether Britain's terror laws will maroon British citizens overseas.
Cameron says it is his duty to keep British people safe while Abbott echoes his comments.
Third question on Russia's increasing military assertiveness.
Cameron :
Russian action in Ukraine is unacceptable. We have to be clear about what we're dealing with here. It is a large state bullying a smaller state in Europe and we've seen the consequences of that in the past and we should learn the lessons of history and make sure we don't let it happen again. I don't believe there's a military solution to this, but I think the sanctions are important.
Abbott :
The last thing I ever imagined 12 months or so back was I would be standing at this podium talking about Russian assertiveness and aggression.
Abbott says Russia's involvement in the Mhl disaster through Russian-backed rebels and calls on Russia to:
come clean and atone.
Then we are back to the Tsar.
Interestingly, Russia's economy is declining even as Russia's assertiveness is increasing and one of the points I tried to make to Putin is that Russia would be so much more attractive if it was aspiring to be a superpower for peace and freedom and prosperity, if it was trying to be a superpower for ideas and for values instead of trying to recreate the lost glories of tsarism or the old Soviet Union.
block-time published-time 12.48pm AEST
First question is on climate change and the China-US agreement.
Cameron says he is waiting to see the details of the agreement but he believes all countries should be taking action on climate change.
Abbott says he welcomes the US China deal, given they are the biggest emitters.
China emits some 24% of global carbon dioxide. The United States emits some 15% of global carbon dioxide by contrast. Australia's about 1%, so I think it's important that they do get cracking when it comes to this. I'm very proud of the fact that at the same time as we got rid of the carbon tax which was damaging our economy without helping the environment, we've put in place our direct action policy and I am absolutely confident that our Direct Action policy will deliver our 5% cut on 2000 levels by 2020.
block-time published-time 12.44pm AEST
David Cameron says Britain is growing at 3% a year, and is happy that the G20 should boost growth.
I think you're also right to highlight the importance of free trade and the dangers of protectionism. The other things I'll be hoping to put on the G20 agenda are obviously the continuing issue of making sure we have better tax cooperation between countries so that big companies pay the tax bills they should.
block-time published-time 12.42pm AEST
Tony Abbott lauds Britain's anti terror laws.
David Cameron said in his speech there will be new powers for police at ports to seize passports, to stop suspects travelling and to stop British nationals returning to the UK unless they do so on the government's terms. Therre will also be new rules to prevent airlines that don't comply with no-fly lists or security screening measures from landing in the UK.
block-time published-time 12.39pm AEST
David Cameron and Tony Abbott are in the prime minister's courtyard for a joint press conference.
Abbott says he appreciated Cameron's comments about economics, trade and security.
He looks forward to the G20 and says "you can't have prosperity without security".
block-time published-time 12.31pm AEST
Inspecting the troops.
British Prime Minister David Cameron at a ceremonial welcome on the forecourt of Parliament House. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 12.29pm AEST
Age shall not weary them.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron speaking to Australian veterans in parliament. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 12.26pm AEST
Shorten is asked about the Australia-Russian relationship.
All Australians know that Tony Abbott overreached when he had a brain snap and said he would shirt front Vladimir Putin. We heard the Prime Minister of England make a joke of the use of the word shirt front in his excellent address to theParliament. What really matters here is getting answers for the families of the victims of MH-17.
He says Russia should behave like a "good international citizen" and provide information to the Dutch investigation.
block-time published-time 12.23pm AEST
Bill Shorten :
If Australia wants to walk on the international stage, we can't pick and choose when we want to be international and when we want to be isolationist. We can't just talk about free trade without talking about tackling youth unemployment. We can't talk about security alone in northern Iraq and then ignore the challenge of Ebola in West Africa. We most certainly need to address climate change as the presidents of China and the United States have done so in such a dramatic fashion this week. Make no mistake, when Tony Abbott says he only wants to concentrate on economic issues what we see is a stubborn isolationist who won't admit climate change is an economic issue.
block-time published-time 12.21pm AEST
Bill Shorten is giving a press conference now. Shorten says Australia needs to be a nation of vision and confidence. He says the G20 is a test of leadership for Tony Abbott. He called on the prime minister to push:
climate change
inclusive growth
pushing global trade
and tackling youth unemployment.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.21pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.17pm AEST
Downer in the House.
Australian High Commissioner to the UK and former (Liberal) foreign minister Alexander Downer in the chamber. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 12.15pm AEST
Cameron is ushered into parliament.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron is led into the chamber by the Usher of the Black Rod. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 12.11pm AEST
"Strewth", said Cameron.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron in Parliament House. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
Trying a little Australian slang.
block-time published-time 12.09pm AEST
One more quote from Bill Shorten :
Today, the War Memorial salutes the memory of Australians who have served our nation in every conflict and peacekeeping operation. So often they have served, fought, fallen, side by side with British soldiers.
From the open veldt of South Africa, to the skies over Europe, most recently in the mountains of Afghanistan and the skies over Mesopotamia, our countries have forged an unbreakable bond of courage and sacrifice - of mutual respect and regard.
Their spirit, their bravery, their shared sense of duty and honour unites our countries in history forever.
block-time published-time 12.07pm AEST
Bill Shorten :
Britain has joined Europe and Australia has found our place in Asia. We sing our own anthems, we celebrate our own cultures.We enjoy a genuine exchange in education, art, music, cinema, literature and fashion.
And whether it is the Ashes, rugby, netball, the Olympics, the Paralympics or the Commonwealth games, we relish an international sporting rivalry as old as any on earth.
Our sledging can sometimes surprise the uninitiated - but it reflects the depth of our friendship - we can dish it out because we know we will get it back. We are both good losers - and fantastic winners.
block-time published-time 12.06pm AEST
Bill Shorten echoed a line of Tony Abbott's with a twist:
The deep and abiding friendship between our nations has evolved and matured. Australia no longer looks to Britain out of need, or dependence - we no longer seek to imitate, or echo. Instead we greet each other as equals and peers - as partners in the world.
block-time published-time 12.02pm AEST
Let me back track to Bill Shorten now with some funny historical anecdotes.
Prime Minister, the first of your predecessors to visit our country did so before Federation - and before he was even a Member of Parliament.
Lord Salisbury, the Conservative icon and one of the great architects of the Empire, visited the colonies as a young man in the 1850s.
Two observations from his lordships journal stand out:
One, his lordship reported there was " less crime than expected".
Two, his lordship reported that the " customary form of address was: mate''.
Just over a hundred years later, Harold MacMillan became the first Prime Minister to experience Australian hospitality whilst in office.
As he recalled:
As I drove into Sydney on my first arrival there, I was amazed to see the great numbers of people in the streets and issuing from all houses.
A huge crowd had turned out to welcome me, far greater, I thought, than any similar crowd could ever be in the old country, and I was deeply touched.
Then someone told me the truth. It was six o'clock ...[and the pubs were closing].
Prime Minister, you will be relieved to hear that the days of the six o'clock swill and early closing are long gone.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.03pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.58am AEST
David Cameron finishes with the point that democracies always seem combative, in a nod - I thought - to the disillusionment with modern politics in the first world.
Here in this Chamber and in the House of Commons back in Britain, we let the brickbats fly. We sometimes say some pretty rude things to each other. We trade insults and put-downs. Not everyone quite gets it.
His point was that for all our flaws and the barbs traded in modern political arena, the values that underpin those societies are strong.
Never forget that we live in countries where the press is free, the law is fair, the right to redress universally available, property rights universally enforceable, the freedom of speech the foundation of our democracy. And let's remember that these things - these incredible values we share - are not just what make our societies strong; they make our economies strong too.
block-time published-time 11.53am AEST
After outlining the anti-terror laws, David Cameron lauds a free press:
Our free and fearless press shines a light wherever it is needed, without fear or favour. Of course that can make life difficult - but it helps drive out the corruption that destroys so many countries. Our governments lose cases in court, because we don't control the courts. But that's why people invest in our countries because they have property rights, and they know that they can get redress from the rule of law and that we have judges who are honest and not on the make.
block-time published-time 11.52am AEST
David Cameron :
Finally, there's a more insipient creeping threat to our values that I want to mention. And it comes from those who say that we will be outcompeted and outgunned by countries that believe there is a short cut to success, a new model of authoritarian capitalism that is unencumbered by the values and restrictions we impose on ourselves. In particular, an approach that is free from the accountability of real democracy and the rule of law. I say: we should have the confidence to reject this view and stay true to our values.
block-time published-time 11.50am AEST
David Cameron warns against protectionism, saying it leads to more jobs and higher wages.
One of the greatest threats to our values and to our success is the spectre of protectionism. Too many people still seem to believe that trade is some sort of zero sum game.
block-time published-time 11.47am AEST
David Cameron :
As we confront this extremism together, let us have faith in the appeal of what our modern societies can offer. Yes, the battles for equality of opportunity for every person of every race and creed are not yet fully won but today your country and my country are places where people can take part, can have their say, can achieve their dreams, places where people feel free to say, "Yes, I'm a Muslim. I'm a Hindu, I'm a Christian but I'm also proud to be a Briton or an Australian too." And that sense of identity, that voice, that stake in society all come directly from standing up for values and our beliefs in open economies and open societies.
block-time published-time 11.45am AEST
Cameron talks about the British economy turning the corner and pays tribute to John Howard and Gough Whitlam.
He says Australia and Britain have always stood firm together because they share the same values.
He briefly outlines Britain's anti-terror laws, but then talks about how to address the root cause of terrorism, the extremist narrative.
As we do so, we must work with the overwhelming majority of Muslims who abhor the twisted narrative that has seduced some of our people. We must continue to celebrate Islam as a great world religion of peace.
He says the internet is presenting a challenge in the fight against the extremist narrative. He says government has a role to ensure it does not become an ungoverned space.
In the UK we are pushing (internet companies) to do more include strengthening filters, improving reporting mechanisms and being more proactive in taking down this harmful material.
block-time published-time 11.39am AEST
David Cameron thanks Australia for its help on ebola: "Typical Australia, always there with action not words."
But for a while our political relationship fell into a state of what William Hague called benign neglect. It's extraordinary to think that no British Foreign Secretary had visited Australia in nearly 20 years. I was determined to change that. Now you've had three visits in as many years and a British Prime Minister twice as well. You might start to think we're beginning to over-do it.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.58pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.36am AEST
Cameron talked about Australia's willingness to help on the world stage and cracks a shirtfront joke.
Only last month your Foreign Minister strode across the room towards me at a summit in Italy. I wondered for a moment whether I was heading for what I'm told we now need to call a shirtfronting.
block-time published-time 11.35am AEST
David Cameron acknowledges the traditional owners of the country. (Abbott did not. Shorten did).
Every chapter of Australia's story has been inspiring. I think of your Indigenous culture with roots stretching back millennia and I feel pride that Aboriginal Australians are now studying at Oxford and Cambridge and one of those scholars, Leila Smith, is here with us today.
block-time published-time 11.34am AEST
Cameron plays tribute to Australian diggers and recalls going to Anzac Cove as a younger man.
We will never forget the thousands of Australian troops who stoodand fought and fell from Lone Pine to the Somme. I especially think of those who fell in Gallipoli which I visited as a young man, surrounded by Aussies and Kiwis the same age as me. We joked as we took the boat across the Straits. But aswe landed and saw that extraordinary memorial, we all fell silent, moved beyond words by what our forefathers had done together.
block-time published-time 11.32am AEST
Cameron addresses Australian parliament.
David Cameron's address.
Coming here is like visiting family, says Cameron.
He also goes to the rivalry mentioned by Shorten.
There's our rivalries on and off the playing field, our fondness for teasing each other's habits and phrases, of course we Poms are known for our bluntness and we never really get your tendancy to beat around the bush and not say what you really mean. We have enormous affection for each other. We may live on opposite sides of the planet but it is hard to think of another country to which theBritish people feel so instinctively close.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.58pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.30am AEST
Bill Shorten is speaking now to echo the old friendship point and harks back to his ancestors. His is a more earthy speech, touching on the rivalry between the two countries but ultimately the unity between the two cultures.
I particularly want to pay a belated tribute to the British justice system because without your strong sentencing laws, some of my mother's Irish ancestors would never have come to Australia.
block-time published-time 11.27am AEST
Abbott finally quotes writer Clive James to note the integral part Britain has played in Australia's development.
He presents Australia and Britain as very close and similar nations.
After two centuries in which both of us have constantly adapted to our own changing and different circumstances, it's remarkable how similar we've become.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.57pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.24am AEST
Tony Abbott makes a regular point about Australia's place in Asia not diminishing the relationship with Britain.
Of course Australia is located in the Indo-Pacific but our place is wherever there is an interest to advance, a citizen to protect, a value to uphold or a friend to encourage. To a similar debate in Britain, Prime Minister Cameron has brought the same robust common sense. Britain is a European country with a global role. And like people, countries don't make new friends by losing old ones and they don't deepen some relationships by diminishing others.
block-time published-time 11.22am AEST
Abbott makes the point Australia and Britain are still fighting together in the war against Islamic State:
History matters because it helps us to know who we are and where we're going. It helps us to know what's important and who can be relied upon. It shapes us but it should never control us.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.59am AEST
block-time published-time 11.20am AEST
Tony Abbott remembers the Australian and British soldiers who died during wartime, fighting with each other. A number of veterans are in the chamber.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.57pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.19am AEST
Abbott:
And what would this world be if Britain had not settled the territory that Captain Cook earlier called NSW? Long ago, Madam Speaker, Australians ceased to regard Britain as the mother country but we are still family. The relationship between Britain and Australia has changed beyond recognition but it's still important and we still matter to each other.
block-time published-time 11.18am AEST
Abbott:
There is so much that Britain has given to us. There's so much, indeed, that Britain has given to everyone. Parliamentary democracy, the common law, constitutional monarchy, and English, the world's first or second language.
Abbot mentions Shakespeare, The Beatles, the advances of the first industrial revolution, and the determination of Churchill?
block-time published-time 11.16am AEST
Tony Abbott:
The first Christian sermon preached in this country took as its text "what shall I render unto the Lord for all his blessings towards me?" This indeed has always characterised us. Gratitude for what we have and a fierce determination to build on it. Modern Australia has an Aboriginal heritage, a British foundation and a multicultural character.
block-time published-time 11.15am AEST
Tony Abbott is welcoming David Cameron and giving a history lesson to build on the British-Australian relationship.
Of those on the First Fleet, the very best that could be said of them was that they had been chosen by the finest judges in England.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.56pm AEST
block-time published-time 11.14am AEST
So it's pretty squashy in parliament and the public galleries are full.
David Cameron is announced. The central chamber doors open and Cameron is introduced to the house and to applause and a standing ovation.
block-time published-time 11.11am AEST
The Speaker Bronwyn Bishop is on her feet, opening parliament.
block-time published-time 11.04am AEST
Here is a bit of smoke from the forecourt, via Karen Barlow of SBS.
Captured the moment one of those enormous guns fired out the front parliament! pic.twitter.com/g5xURYQWsT
- Karen Barlow (@KJBar) November 14, 2014
block-time published-time 11.01am AEST
From the Aboriginal deaths in custody protest in Brisbane:
Crowd swelled to about 300 at the Aboriginal deaths in custody protest at #G20Brisbanepic.twitter.com/L9WiB4qykE
- Mark Di Stefano (@MarkDiStef) November 13, 2014
block-time published-time 10.56am AEST
David Cameron's address is coming up as the independent legal observers arrive in Brisbane.
There are six "independent legal observers" in white singlets hovering on the outside of the #G20Brisbane protest pic.twitter.com/Hp7OnOHAUN
- Mark Di Stefano (@MarkDiStef) November 13, 2014
block-time published-time 10.52am AEST
Mark Di Stefano for Buzzfeed is tweeting from the G20 protests regarding Aboriginal deaths in custody.
At "Aboriginal deaths in custody" protest there about as many journalists as protestors at the moment #G20Brisbanepic.twitter.com/CoZOkdOPzB
- Mark Di Stefano (@MarkDiStef) November 13, 2014
block-time published-time 10.49am AEST
That's it for the welcome ceremony. David Cameron is in the House to sign the visitors' book. DC woz 'ere. There's a warm leaders' handshake for the cameras and then more official party stuff.
block-time published-time 10.47am AEST
Now the Australian anthem, Advance Australia Fair. You li'l beauty rich and rare.
block-time published-time 10.45am AEST
David Cameron is meeting the official party, including Speaker Bronwyn Bishop, Labor deputy leader Tanya Plibersek, Alexander Downer and others.
Now stand up for God Save the Queen please.
block-time published-time 10.42am AEST
David Cameron is now inspecting Australia's federation guard to a jaunty little tune, the kind you would hear as the troops were making merry in Guns of Navarone.
block-time published-time 10.37am AEST
David Cameron has arrived at parliament in a white car with a British flag on the front as the seagulls whirl through the forecourt over head. The guns are going, in their customary salute.
block-time published-time 10.35am AEST
Who wants to do fill in commentary? On ABC24, former advisor to Tony Blair, Nick Rowley is asked to explain the similarities between Cameron and Abbott.
Well...they are both men...
He did go on to make some very salient points, to be fair.
block-time published-time 10.33am AEST
Meanwhile, in Brisbane, the locals have vanished.
Friday morning, and parts of the #Brisbane CBD are a ghost town #G20#G20Brisbanepic.twitter.com/UPClMSwHfU
- Adam Todd (@_AdamTodd) November 13, 2014
block-time published-time 10.30am AEST
Tony Abbott has arrived in the parliamentary forecourt. He is now waiting for David Cameron, who is in a different car.
block-time published-time 10.26am AEST
The drums have started out the front. Australian flags are being waved, the anthem is played. A soldier is yelling very loudly.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.27am AEST
block-time published-time 10.26am AEST
Tony Abbott from this morning on the British-Australian relationship.
It's a relationship between, if not quite equals, certainly peers, and it is as warm as, as intimate, and as important as any relationship on this eTarth.
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and David Cameron. Photograph: DAN HIMBRECHTS/AAPIMAGE
He was discussing economic size.
block-time published-time 10.14am AEST
Former Australian Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser has some advice for his successor Tony Abbott.
Coal versus climate in Australia. Climate change must be discussed if meeting is to have relevance http://t.co/8YdQFA2zg3
- Malcolm Fraser (@MalcolmFraser12) November 12, 2014
block-time published-time 10.08am AEST
Tony Abbott was not to be outdone. He was talking up the prospects of foreign investment, notably British foreign investment.
We will give this country the muscle and the sinew that it needs to advance into the future and we will do it in partnership with investors from Britain and elsewhere. There is a long history of British investment in Australia. After the US, Britain is by far the biggest investor in this country. It's been a very steady consistent flow of British investment into this country ever since the very beginning of settlement here in 1788.
block-time published-time 10.06am AEST
Arrrr me hearties. David Cameron has found his buccaneering spirit. It wasn't only Tony Abbott spruiking his government's achievements.
No doubt after some difficult years Britain is back. Our economy is now the fastest growing of any G7 countries, we're going to do plus 3% this year. We've seen, since I've been PM, 2 million private sector jobs created, that is more jobs created than in the rest of the European Union put together. We've seen some real progress in our country. 400,000 more businesses operating in Britain and a sense that our economy is really on the move. Lots of challenges because we're in a neighbourhood that doesn't have a huge amount of growth and lots of things we need to crack but the British economy is back. We have refound that buccaneering trading spirit and we're linking ourselves up with all of the fastest growing parts of the world.
block-time published-time 10.02am AEST
While we are limbering up for David Cameron's arrival, you may like to do a primer on what the G20 hopes to achieve. Lenore Taylor has written a piece to get you up to speed on the hopes and dreams of the G20 and whether they will get there:
In 2008 when the global economy was in crisis, the G20 stepped up. But in the six years since it has become better known for the protests it attracts than the progress it has made on its central goals of promoting growth and strengthening international economic institutions.
So when the leaders meet again this weekend in Brisbane, Australia, they will be under pressure to achieve something tangible for the gathering to prove its relevance. But it is not at all clear that the "announceables" - the outcomes pre-negotiated by officials after a full year of meetings - will be sufficient to achieve that goal.
block-time published-time 9.56am AEST
Let's put this story under the theme, my gun is bigger than yours.
Brisbane's Courier Mail is reporting that another Australian ship has been sent to "intercept" the Russian fleet heading our way.
A third Australian warship has been dispatched to intercept a Russian flotilla steaming towards the G20 summit in Brisbane and a fourth navy vessel is ready to divert to the area. The replenishment ship HMAS Sirius is heading into the Coral Sea to support the frigates HMAS Parramatta and HMAS Stuart and the frigate HMAS Sydney is preparing to divert from an exercise in New Zealand to join the mission, according to a government source.
News' national defence writer Ian McPhedran "understands that the government also asked the Navy about the possibility of a Collins Class submarine joining the mission but was told that the nearest boat was in Perth and would not be able to reach the area until well after the G20 summit was over".
But there are anti-submarine warfare choppers on the Australian ships but don't panic. Defence sources said a Russian submarine is not likely to be in the area.
block-time published-time 9.45am AEST
Business is Gr8 Mate.
Talking to business leaders in Sydney about our long-term economic plan, which is helping the UK grow in tough times. pic.twitter.com/edbCJTqGKN
- David Cameron (@David_Cameron) November 13, 2014
block-time published-time 9.42am AEST
Summary of morning events for David Cameron
Here is a rundown, just in case you need to adjust your day for the events of the parliament.
David Cameron and Tony Abbott is about to arrive in Canberra, due at 10am.
There will be a ceremonial welcome in the forecourt of parliament at 10.30am and then he will sign the visitors book shortly before 11am. He will address the house at 11.10am, with the senators squashing in to the green benches. Then the two leaders will give a joint press conference before speeding off to the Australian War Memorial to lay a wreath.
block-time published-time 9.35am AEST
Head in the sand on climate change
As world leaders arrive at the G20 Summit in Brisbane, more than 400 people buried their heads in the sand at Bondi Beach in Sydney. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
Bowers was scouting around Sydney yesterday in preparation for the G20 and caught these people, 400 of them, protesting about Australia's stance on climate change. They buried their heads in the sand, bums in the air. With the surfboards, it seems a very Australian protest.
block-time published-time 9.27am AEST
After the walk, Tony Abbott and David Cameron had a business breakfast. The theme was infrastructure, in keeping with Abbott's election slogans, the infrastructure of the 21st century. Abbott showed his writerly tendencies in imagining what it was like for the First Fleet, fronting up in Sydney in 1788. The message was that Britain and Australia have had an "extraordinary partnership" since that first boat hit the harbour. (Lucky we didn't stop that one.) Abbott went on to provide a word picture of what those first boat people saw. At this point, you might want to shut your eyes, indigenous Australia.
As we look around this glorious city, as we see the extraordinary development, it's hard to think that back in 1788 it was nothing but bush, and that the marines and the convicts and the sailors that straggled off those 12 ships just a few hundred yards from where we are now must have thought they had come almost to the moon.
Everything would have been so strange. Everything would have seemed so extraordinarily basic and raw, and now a city which is one of the most spectacular cities on our globe, and in a country which is as free, as fair and as prosperous as any, a country which is in so many ways the envy of the Earth. So, it's great to be here with you, David, and I hope, as you pay your first visit to Sydney, and you think of what your countrymen did 200-odd years back, you do feel a measure of pride and satisfaction at what has been achieved here in that time.
Look, it's terrific to be talking about infrastructure.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 9.30am AEST
block-time published-time 9.09am AEST
Good morning politicos,
The guns are lined up on the parliamentary forecourt, Tony Abbott and David Cameron have taken a turn around the Sydney Opera House. There must be a big show on today. Yes, you guessed it, the G20 is in town.
The British prime minister, or rather one of his staffers, has kicked off the hoopla with this tweet from the PM2PM Power Walk. No doubting where he is.
With my friend @TonyAbbottMHR on a morning walk in Sydney. Later I'll address the Australian Parliament. pic.twitter.com/jc3iLhRi6u
- David Cameron (@David_Cameron) November 13, 2014
Stay with us for the day. Tony Abbott has already given a cracking speech reflecting on the Australia found by "the marines and sailors and convicts that straggled off those 12 ships". More of that, I promise.
I am ably assisted by Mike Bowers and please join the conversation below or on Twitter. I am @gabriellechan and he is @mpbowers. If the G20 crosses your world, be sure to employ your smartphone on social media and tag me. We will share your experiences but keep it clean people.
Onwards and upwards.
G20: British PM David Cameron addresses Australian parliament - politics live British prime minister delivers speech to special sitting of parliament in Canberra false theguardian.com true http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/11/14/1415927538140/10b5d6b2-37d1-4e87-9fa3-a0cbdab91bc4-140x84.jpeg 6777 true 451859930 false 54652586e4b0867bcfaf64b4 false Gabrielle Chan false 2192564 AUS true 2014-11-17T09:15:00+11:00
LOAD-DATE: November 14, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
332 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 14, 2014 Friday 3:45 AM GMT
The right has won control of the English-speaking world - thanks to the weakness of the left;
Over the last three decades, leftwing parties in the English-speaking world have taken on much of the right's antidemocratic programme and lost their souls
BYLINE: Jason Wilson
SECTION: COMMENT IS FREE
LENGTH: 2933 words
Besides the 5-Eyes spying agreement, the English-speaking democracies of the North Atlantic and the South Pacific are frequently said to have a few things in common. British prime minister David Cameron recited them perfectly before the Australian parliament on Friday: "open economies and open societies", a free press, and "real democracy and the rule of law" safeguarded by liberal institutions.
These fantasies underpin the canonical history of what the rightwing calls the Anglosphere. Conservative thinktankers get misty-eyed when they hear speeches like these, which downplay the way in which these English traditions were imposed by settler colonists on countries stolen from their indigenous inhabitants. The Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, did just that in his introduction to Cameron's visit:
It's hard to think that back in 1788 [Sydney] was nothing but bush and that the marines and the convicts and sailors... must have thought they had come almost to the moon.
Right now the Anglosphere nations share another institution: everywhere, the political right is in charge, despite the times offering us reasons to vote for parties emphasising leftwing notions of environmental responsibility, equality, and military restraint.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has just reminded us again that the planet is frying beneath our feet. Economic inequality has widened in the Anglosphere over the last 30 years, and even more sharply in the last decade. In the "recovery" from the global financial crisis, in the UK and the US middle class incomes have declined, with the gains going to the very rich. In former welfare states like the UK, austerity policies are literally starving vulnerable citizens. Conservatives in other Anglosphere countries, like Australia's treasurer Joe Hockey, would dearly like to follow the Tories' example.
The only exemption to the defunding of public services are military and intelligence agencies - the air forces of Australia, Canada, the US and Britain are busy fighting in a new phase of the endless, profligate, unwinnable war in the Middle East. Over the course of this war, intelligence cooperation between the proud liberal democracies of the Anglosphere has evolved into what Edward Snowden has called a "supra-national intelligence organisation that doesn't answer to the laws of its own countries".
Despite all this, the right are enjoying a new heyday that puts the Thatcher and Reagan years in the shade. Australia is ruled by the most reactionary national government in its history. Stephen Harper, having first transformed Canadian conservatism into a simulacrum of the US Republican party, is now remodelling the country itself as a petro-state. In New Zealand, a scandal implicating prime minister John Key's staff in the smearing of political rivals did not prevent his National party government being returned in September. In the UK an austerity-mad Tory-led coalition government is drifting further right, as it (and Labour) dance to a tune set by the golf club bigots in Ukip. In the US, Republicans - who have spent the last four years obstructing Obama's painfully modest agenda - are now making conciliatory and cooperative noises because they are effectively the party of government, and are seeking to clear the way for their own agenda.
Each country has its own internal political dynamics. In each case the right has come to power in different ways. But these groupings share a lot of ideological common ground. This is no accident - multinational corporate lobbying, a global network of thinktanks, and the planetary echo chamber afforded by organisations like Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation keeps right wing ideas circulating and resonating throughout the English speaking world.
Anglosphere conservatives want to erode whatever remains of their respective welfare states, with a particular emphasis on wrecking social security, education and public health. They have profited by scapegoating immigrants or refugees, and stoking paranoia about border security. More so than in previous eras of rightwing ascendancy, they are joined at the hip to the carbon merchants whose products are worsening the climate disaster already under way. While Abbott waxes lyrical about the civilising properties of coal, Harper redesigns Canada's foreign policy around getting the products of its dirty oil sands industry to market. In the US, the Koch brothers and other carbon moguls bankroll the Republican party. If New Zealand and UK conservatives are less strident on this topic, it's because their carbon industries are nonexistent or were deliberately destroyed. Right now, they're all committed to the negotiation of a Trans -Pacific Partnership that economist Joseph Stiglitz says benefits "the wealthiest sliver of the American and global elite at the expense of everyone else".
The funny thing is that - with the exception of Key's relatively moderate government - all of these rightwing majorities are unpopular. Obama's approval ratings may be catastrophically low, but Congress's are even lower - the Republican takeover is based on the consistent support of a small, well-mobilised, conservative fraction of the electorate and the refusal of erstwhile Democrat supporters to turn out to vote. Since their failure to win a majority in their own right, the UK Tories - whose MPs are virtually all stationed in the countryside and comfy suburbs of England - have only declined in their standing. In Australia the Liberals' polling has been in an election-losing position almost since they came to government, and the electorate have resolutely disliked Abbott since before he assumed power. In Canada, Harper has been in negative electoral territory for well over a year.
Their ideas aren't well-liked, either. In Australia, the Abbott government has sustained most of the damage to its standing following the passage of a budget that the electorate correctly judged to be unfair to the most vulnerable. In the recent mid-terms, despite returning Republican candidates, US electorates passed a raft of progressive initiatives, including several mandating a rise in the local minimum wage, a couple making recreational marijuana legal, and even some mandating maximum class sizes in public schools.
Alaska, for example, returned a Republican senator and congressman at the same time that it legalised marijuana, voted for a minimum wage, and restricted mining to protect salmon refuges; a measure aimed at re-imposing taxes on oil companies only narrowly failed. In the UK, you could be forgiven for thinking from media coverage that immigration is the uppermost priority for voters. In fact, it's increasing funding to the NHS, which the Tories would like to eviscerate even more thoroughly than they have. In all of these countries, polling shows that the decline of public services, privatisation, and economic insecurity are perennial concerns for large swathes of their respective electorates.
The main reason the right finds itself in this position is not their own strength, or the broad acceptance of their ideas, but the weakness of mainstream leftwing parties. Partly this is down to a lack of effective political leadership. While Republicans ran against the president in the US midterms, so, often enough, did his Democrat colleagues. So desperate were they to avoid any association with him that some were led to refuse to admit that they had ever voted for him. Not only were candidates distancing themselves from what Jeb Lund called Obama's "one major legislative achievement", the Affordable Care Act, but they also gave only lukewarm support to the progressive ballot measures (and attendant social movements) that any sensible centre-left party might have viewed as a source of potential renewal. In the UK, Ed Miliband's personal unpopularity is equalling the records previously set by Lib-Dems leader Nick Clegg. In Australia, Labor leader Bill Shorten's bizarre communication style is good fodder for comedians, but perplexing for everybody else.
Leaders tend to look better when they are moving in a discernible direction. The real problem for centre-left parties in the Anglosphere is that it's very difficult to tell what their objectives are, and what, if anything, they stand for. (If any Australian can provide me with a succinct account of contemporary "Labor Values", I'm dying to hear it).
Having spent the last three decades chasing conservatives rightwards in pursuit of a mythical centre, it may be that politicians are as confused as voters are. Between them the social democratic governements of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair redefined progressive policy, seeking to effect social change through market-based, capital-friendly mechanisms. Capital showed precious little gratitude to them, and none to their successors. But the habit of trying to please everyone, including the vested interests who actually need to be confronted in order to bring about lasting change, dies hard.
A few recent examples show how this tends to play out. In Australia, Kevin Rudd was elected to the prime ministership in 2007 with a mandate to address climate change. With the country in drought, and the conservatives reeling from a devastating loss partly driven by climate concerns, the opportunity was there to act. Unfortunately the main game - constraining the ability of powerful industries to continue polluting the atmosphere - became somewhat obscured. The ALP had only one plan on the table, an emissions trading scheme. Emissions trading represents the mainstream international progressive consensus, but actually has its origins in the interactions between economics and the emerging environmental movement in the 1970s. Green groups seeking victories by speaking in the respectful tones of economics have also made emissions trading a cause celebre. (Recently published books by Naomi Klein and Philip Mirowski are informative on this point.)
As soon as Rudd's government introduced legislation, emissions trading began to do the political work it is designed to do. The political energy and momentum attached to climate action was, as Mirowski puts it, "diverted into the endless technicalities of the institution and maintenance of novel markets for carbon permits", while "emissions [continued] to grow apace in the interim". In effect, a government with a strong mandate to curb carbon emissions was destroyed by the politicking around the technical settings of a scheme which tried to avoid alienating voters, consumers and the carbon industry, and wound up pleasing no one. The incoming Abbott government has dismantled Labor's scheme just as it was beginning to curb emissions. Now the likelihood of Australia implementing any meaningful action any time in the next decade seems remote. So much for centrist pragmatism.
In the US, what was the Democrats' proudest progressive achievement - universal health insurance - was, in the mid-terms, a millstone around their necks. Progressives like to blame such reversals on the perversity of voters who do not properly recognise their own interests, and to be sure, many of those who vociferously opposed the scheme before its introduction did so on the basis of rumours about doctors being forced on them and speculation about "death panels". The lasting unpopularity of the Affordable Care Act, however, is as a result of its failing to deliver the progressive goal of universal, equitable health care.
Instead of a "single-payer" scheme - of the kind that Obama himself supported before 2004 - a Democrat controlled congress and White House implemented a scheme designed in outline by the Heritage Foundation and first applied by Mitt Romney. The origins are important when we notice what the scheme does: maintains a transactional, privatised model of healthcare rather than a public one, and allows the insurance industry to continue extracting rents while paying out as little as possible.
For all that, it extends at least some coverage to those who may otherwise have had none at all. It also imposes high mandatory costs on low- to middle-income earners (up to 9.5% of their income), without removing the risk of bankruptcy in the case of serious or debilitating illness, and without getting rid of high out of pocket expenses - that could mean spending up to a third of a household's income on healthcare in a bad year. Even if they don't come out to vote against it, voters may not be enthused to turn out to consolidate a system that is so oriented to the desires of the insurance industry. Right now, the vital centre must seem like a lonely place for Obama.
Many argue that the mainstream left favours these doomed schemes because they have been corrupted by the money politics of contemporary democracies, so that appeasing corporate donors has become more important than serving voters. To some extent, that's no doubt true. But there is something more fundamental happening that goes to a suffocating Anglophone policy orthodoxy, and a lack of confidence in real progressive ideas.
Since the end of the Cold War (or even slightly before in Australia) centre-left parties have become essentially defensive, while the social democracies they helped build are eroded, sometimes by their own hand. In the view of the Blair-Clinton-Keating "third way", the hangover from which still informs our centre-left parties, markets can only ever be negotiated with - never controlled. Economics is understood to be the authentic language of politics.
This orthodoxy is reinforced in the schools of government, economics and law that serve as political finishing schools for professional politicians, cut off from the social movements that once nourished their parties. It is repeated to them by the political advisers who attended the same schools. Even after the recession hollowed out the middle class, and increased the ranks of the poor, it has been assumed that the interests of the many can be made to coincide with the prosperity of the few. The left are terminally shy of picking fights.
The right have no such aversions. Whereas it's difficult to say who centre-left parties see as their enemies outside the narrow field of electoral politics, the right target public sector workers, public broadcasters, academics and environmentalists for public attack. As the debate over economic issues has collapsed into consensus, it's become easier for conservative parties sponsored by billionaires to mobilise their supporters on cultural issues, and to offer an inverse populism based on a hatred of elites. Fearing above everything the accusation of "class warfare", the official left fails to ameliorate the condition of those going backwards, who will be hit hardest by looming environmental crisis.
It's evident that this unabashed antagonism has underpinned the right's most significant victories, which consist in making their opponents take on their positions. The addiction of the centre-left to neoliberal economic orthodoxy is the least of this; the US Democrats and labour parties in the UK and Australia have taken on many of the right's most frankly antidemocratic stances from sheer political timidity. In Australia, Liberal race-baiting has led Labor to mostly endorse the punitive treatment of asylum seekers, and they're fully signed up to a continued war in the middle east. Labour in the UK are currently tracking right on immigration, having spent their last period in government refining methods for disciplining and surveilling those left behind by a deindustrialised economy. In the US, Obama has authorised extrajudicial drone executions, left Guantanamo open, and is leading the Anglosphere back into Iraq. The official left shows a contempt for the values of its natural supporters that the right would never dare to, or think to.
When Rudd and Obama were elected in quick succession, commentators rushed to draw a line under the neoliberal era that began with Reagan and Thatcher. They spoke too soon. On current form, if anyone is to do that, they will either will not be a part of mainstream left wing parties, or they will come from outside the advanced liberal democracies of the Anglosphere, where politics is less hostile to new and radical ideas.
Third parties like the Greens are attracting support in the UK and particularly in Australia, where Labor appears to have permanently conceded a quarter of its primary vote to the environmental party. But in those countries and in the US, the most inspiring initiatives may come from the citizenry itself. While ossified progressive parties actively reject the vitality of newer social movements concerned with the environment, inequality and new forms of identity politics. The desire for relevance may eventually persuade them that they need to pay closer attention to those demanding that capital be reined in, in the interests of the people and the planet.
Elsewhere, and particularly in Latin America, it's evident that democratic socialism is still a possibility, and a field of experimentation. Their leaders' commitment to basic economic justice is not only something that the Anglosphere's left ought to take on, but which may be necessary for its survival. Those who say we have nothing to learn from still-developing economies have not paid enough attention to regressive developments closer to home. The millions who have been and soon will be immiserated by the machinery of liberal capitalism will have little time for the morality tales of neoliberalism. If existing centre left parties do not speak to their demands, who will?
LOAD-DATE: November 14, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
333 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 14, 2014 Friday 3:14 AM GMT
Victoria's environmental record under scrutiny: how green is Denis Napthine?;
It's the only Australian state with a climate change minister, but environment groups are less than impressed with Victoria
BYLINE: Gay Alcorn
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 3158 words
Guardian Australia revealed on Thursday that Victoria's four peak environment groups had released a joint statement claiming the Coalition government's record was the worst the groups had ever seen, amounting to a "wholesale attack on the state's environmental assets".
So what is the record? Here, we look at the key decisions and policies of the Baillieu/Napthine government on the environment.
Environment and climate change minister Ryan Smith declined to be interviewed for this story. In an email, he said the government had invested more than $3.1bn in the environment and was "committed to taking practical action to protect and enhance our environment, which delivers tangible results and best value for money".
"This includes acknowledging the challenges posed by a changing climate. The Coalition has invested $50m targeted specifically to help Victorian's adapt to climate change.
"Victoria was the first state to release its climate change adaptation plan, which is a comprehensive strategy to help minimise the costs of any potential risks and take advantage of any opportunities that could arise out of changes in our climate.
"The Greens and Labor are again out of touch, they show a lack of understanding on what the Victorian Coalition has invested in and achieved for Victorians on environmental matters."
Climate change
There is only one minister for climate change in the country - Ryan Smith, Victoria's environment and climate change minister. The title implies that the Coalition government has an interest in the issue, even in an era of mixed messages from Canberra about how urgent it is.
Yet Smith mentioned climate change not once in parliament this year. His website reveals no speeches or statements on climate change in 2014. Nor has he released a single media release on that part of his portfolio this year.
What the government did when it was elected was to scrap the Brumby Labor government's legislated target to cut the state's greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020. The target was set after the failure of the Rudd's government's carbon trading scheme to pass the Senate. Victoria was the first state to have such a goal.
At the time, the Liberal party voted for it and promised at the 2010 election to keep it. After the election, it was described as "aspirational" only, and the target was dropped entirely in 2012.
The government's argument was that because the Gillard government had by then put in place a carbon price to achieve a national emissions reduction goal, there was no need for states to have their own. Victoria could be disadvantaged compared with other states if it did.
As Environment Victoria's CEO Mark Wakeham points out, Victoria's target wasn't one with penalties, but more a statement of intent about the state's direction, a benchmark to refer to when making decisions such as planning and infrastructure decisions.
The broader question is whether the government has any real commitment to climate change action, despite the minister's title. In 2008, then opposition leader Ted Baillieu told parliament "'We support an emission capping and trading scheme as the least costly way of responding to global warming.''
Along with the federal party, that support is gone in Victoria. The Coalition inherited Labor-appointed commissioner for environmental sustainability, Professor Kate Auty, who quit the job earlier this year, saying the government had discouraged bureaucrats from even using the term "climate change" - a claim the government denies.
Auty's main job was to produce a report on the State of the Environment. Climate change is global, but its impact is local, and Auty outlined the evidence that Victoria would see an average rise in temperature by 2030 of between 0.6 degrees and 1.2 degrees since 1990 and as high as 3.8 degrees by 2070.
There would be less rainfall, and more intense and frequent bushfires and heatwaves. Melbourne had nine days over 35 degrees in 1990. That's likely to be as high as 26 by 2070.
Auty told Guardian Australia that the government inherited an "extraordinary superstructure" of programs in biodiversity, coastal management, climate change adaptation and mitigation. Even little things, such as increasing the number of hybrid vehicles in the government fleet, reducing water use, and better lighting were under way.
Auty believes that when then prime minister Julia Gillard was under sustained attack over the introduction of a carbon tax, the conservative states were encouraged to pull back, to "not give an ounce of oxygen" on climate change. Any state momentum was lost, and the Victorian government alleged dire consequences to the state economy if a carbon tax were introduced.
"It's been an exercise in dismantlement and dismissiveness and ideology and ... to a certain extent just bastardry," Auty said.
The government last year released a climate action adaption plan, a commitment inherited from the Brumby government. It was praised for its approach of partnering with local governments to adapt to the big changes underway, but criticised for offering just $6m to deal with them.
Labor has so far promised only to review the need for Victoria to again set a target, but shadow environment and climate change minister Lisa Neville insists states do have a role in both reducing emissions and adapting, "even more so now that we have a federal government that is really walking away from serious action when it come to climate change.".
Greens leader Greg Barber says neither major party is whole-hearted because "things are getting serious and they'd have to actually do something which would mean an economic transition".
99-year leases for developments in national parks
Neville acknowledges that state elections are dominated by education, health, jobs and transport, but she says the environment does shift some votes and "people expect their government to be protecting national parks, protecting the coastlines, even if it mightn't be their number one issue".
No environmental decision has been more controversial than to allow up to 99-year leases for large-scale commercial developments in up to two thirds of the state's national parks. Until then, commercial operations were banned in Victoria apart from small-scale operations such as camping grounds and kiosks.
Private development in national parks was not promised at the last election, but Ryan said at the time that it brought Victoria into line with all others states and territories except the ACT. It was needed to attract more tourists, particularly from China and there would be exclusion zones for particularly sensitive areas. The government believes eco-tourism is compatible with the protection of national parks.
A few days before the caretaker period began, the government quietly signed off the first lease under the new laws - a 50-year lease for a luxury hot spring resort, 108-room hotel and conference centre at the Point Nepean national park on the tip of the Mornington Peninsula.
"We're not against commercial use of parks," says Matt Ruchel, executive director of the Victorian National Parks Association. "There are already hundreds of leases and licences, mostly short term, but 99 years is as good as private ownership in our view."
There are old quarantine buildings at Point Nepean and "there needs to be some commercial use of it, but no one expected the whole 64 ha of the site to be sliced off for a giant spa resort."
Ruchel says Victoria's laws open up national parks to private development more than other states. He argues it is preferable to locate big developments adjacent to national parks, not inside them.
NSW allows one 99-year lease, for the private ski resorts at Kosciuszko national park. The Victorian government has cited the Southern Ocean Lodge resort at Kangaroo Island in South Australia as an example of what can be done, but that facility is just outside the national parks. Cradle Mountain Lodge in Tasmania is also outside the national park.
But there is growing pressure in all states for greater tourist development within national parks. Apart from Victoria, only Tasmania allows 99-year private leases, all but transferring ownership according to critics. And Ruchel says that the fact that so much of the state's national parks will be potentially available for development is unprecedented.
The CEO of the National Parks Association of NSW, Kevin Evans, said there were no similar proposals for developments of spa resorts and hotels in that state. "No, there would be warfare about using our national areas for that purpose," he said.
The Victorian government has no plans for new national parks in the state, while Labor is under pressure to declare the Great Forest National Park in the state's central highlands, in part to protect the endangered Leadbeater's possum. Labor would also remove cattle grazing in the Alpine National Park, which the Coalition allowed after the election.
Wind farms and renewables
The political focus is on the Federal government's intention to water down the renewable energy target (RET), a once bipartisan policy for Australia to meet 20% of its energy needs through clean sources by 2020. It would mean the installation of of 41,000 gigawatt hours of renewable energy would be reduced to around 26,000 gigawatts, a cut Labor says is unacceptable.
The uncertainty in the renewable industry is already causing pain - last month, Victorian wind turbine giant Keppel Prince announced 100 job cuts, blaming the lack of clarity in the federal government's commitment to renewable energy. As it happens, the business is in premier Denis Napthine's electorate.
What role should states play in reducing reliance on fossil fuels in favour of clean energy? Victoria had the country's first state renewable energy target in 2006, a reaction to the Howard government's decision not to extend the then mandatory renewable energy target. In some circles, Victoria's move all-but saved the renewable industry in this country.
The aim then was to have clean energy provide 10% of Victoria's needs. "If not us, who? If not now, when?" then environment minister John Thwaites told parliament at the time. "Today is the day for Victoria to assume its rightful place in leading the nation towards a sustainable energy future."
Some environment groups argue that state schemes are a distraction from the main game in Canberra. Others say state schemes can at least set ambitious, if not mandatory, targets and provide a framework to encourage investment of renewable businesses. The ACT, which has a 90% statutory target, says the real work may have to be done by the states if the federal government succeeds in lowering the national scheme.
In the US, more than half of all states have their own renewable energy targets. South Australia has been the most ambitious here, recently announcing it would target to 50% by 2025, up from 33% target that has already been met. It's not a mandatory target, but the state has managed to attract almost half of all large-scale renewable energy investment in the country.
NSW has no official target beyond the national one, but is sensing the business opportunities. Its environment minister Rob Stokes in July announced an ambitious policy on renewable energy. "We can make NSW number one for clean energy and climate change mitigation ... we can be Australia's answer to California," he said.
Napthine himself this week tweeted: "Disappointed RET negotiations stalled. Time to redouble efforts for positive RET outcome - crucial for alternative energy industries." He has said that the government has provided support for solar, geothermal, wave and wind industries.
But environment groups argue the state is missing out because of the government's lack of real commitment. Victoria gets about 12% of its energy from renewables. In its submission to the RET review, Victoria supported the Abbott government's argument that a "real" 20% target would mean a substantial cut. It also offered the novel suggestion that the RET should include gas-fired power, which is derived from fossil fuels. The City of Melbourne is ahead of the state government, setting a target to produce 25% of electricity from renewables by 2018 and opposing any change to the national RET.
"To get renewable energy rolling out in Victoria we need to do two things, rip up the anti-wind farm laws, and institute a state renewable energy target," says Leigh Ewbank, Friends of the Earth's renewable energy spokesperson.
Wind farms have become the lightning rod in Victoria and a clear policy difference between the parties. The state has the most restrictive regulations in the country (although NSW comes a close second), including the right for residents to veto a project if it comes within 2km of their homes. In other states, the restriction is around 1km, and there is no right of veto in Western Australia, South Australia or Queensland.
The restrictions have brought the industry to a halt. Labor on Thursday announced it would reduce to 1km the right of residents to veto. It also pointed out that, since 2010, only two wind farm projects had been approved by the government - and neither were within the 2km zone.
Politically, this is a big issue in regional Victoria, desperate for new industries and jobs. Labor's wind farm policy changes will allow locals in Macedon ranges to establish a "community wind farm", which has been blocked despite support from locals. Macedon is a marginal seat, and the restrictions have been a big issue as regional communities look for jobs and new industries.
But Labor would keeping the veto right for residents for projects within 1km of their homes, and keeps the "no go" zones where no wind farms can be build. The Greens say it's half-hearted reform, and that only normal noise restrictions should apply.
Labor hasn't said it supports a state renewable energy target but has announced a $20m fund to provide grants to high growth renewable industries.
Energy efficiency
The government plans to abandon the Victoria's key scheme to improve energy efficiency. The Victorian Energy Efficiency Target (Veet) started in in 2009 and, like a similar one in NSW, provides energy saving devices such as efficient light bulbs and power boards to households, mostly free. The target is to saving 5.4m tonnes of greenhouse emissions each year.
Wakeham says that of all the government's environment decisions, he was "most shocked when they wanted to cut the Veet because it had created 2000 jobs and it had delivered cost savings to hundred of households and business." The scheme was due to finished in 2030.
"The reason they gave for dismantling it was that had been affecting the profitability of existing generators. It was a program designed to reduce energy consumption; of course it was going to affect existing generators.
"The fact that that was uppermost in their thinking shows the degree to which their policies were protecting vested interests rather than the public interest."
The government argued the scheme was no longer cost effective. It had helped participating households save more than $1000 from electricity bills to 2030, but it was cross-subsidised by those who didn't participate. They would pay an extra $48 a year on their power bills to 2017.
A spokesperson for the energy minister, Russell Northe, told the Age that the government "will not support a scheme that is cross-subsidised by the most disadvantaged".
Yet the government's own review of the scheme concluded "relatively disadvantaged areas have received a greater share of certificates than more advantaged areas".
When announcing the decision, the government did say it would initiate other schemes, but has not said what as yet. Labor has promised to keep the scheme if elected.
Coal and CSG
When the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its most recent report warning that fossil fuels needed to be phased out by the end of the century while renewable energy must make up 80% of production by 2050, Napthine was asked if he agreed.
More than 90% of Victoria's energy needs come from brown coal, which is more polluting than black coal and gas.
Napthine spoke supportively of the industry, saying it "provides us cheap, affordable energy for Victorian families and Victorian businesses. It's vital for the cost of living for families, vital for our competitive industries." He also said the government was "strongly supportive" of renewable energy.
One of the first actions of the Coalition government when it was elected was to cease talks with the Hazelwood power station - the dirtiest in the country - to begin a phased shutdown, saying it would be too expensive.
The previous Labor government when it set its emissions reduction target said closing part of the power station was "the most cost effective way" to clean up the state's environment. But it relied on federal money to pay compensation to Hazelwood and in 2012, the Gillard government abandoned talks, saying the compensation being sought was too high.
The IPPC's warnings are dismissed or ignored because states are so reliant on coal for their energy needs. The government doesn't want to phase out coal mining, it wants to expand it - and there is no evidence that Labor will have a different view.
In 2012, the then Baillieu government called for expressions of interest to extract 13 billion tonnes of brown coal. The Age reported last month that new licences could be issued soon after the election - which ever party forms government.
So far, coal has been used for domestic purposes in Victoria, but the government wants to develop it and export it. This year it granted $75m for three new coal projects.
Barber says the state is captured in its environment policy by fossil fuel companies. "Really, they've got a lot to lose, and why wouldn't they devote an increasing proportion of their profits to lobbying efforts and propaganda efforts to stay on the wicket they're on?"
At this election, key issues such as the future development of new coal reserves are not being discussed. Neville would only say: "On coal, we absolutely have to rebuild our renewable energy market, we need to increase the share of renewable energy in order to prioritise the phasing out of brown coal and fossil fuels."
Similarly, there is official silence on whether Victoria develops a coal seam gas (CSG) industry. More than 30 communities across the state have declared themselves "gasfield free" and want the major parties to declare their position before the vote.
The government has put a moratorium on unconventional gas until mid next year while it conducts consultations, and will not state its position beforehand. Labor has said it will launch an inquiry into unconventional gas if it wins the election, but will also give no commitment before November 29. The Greens oppose CSG mining and hope to win their first upper house seat outside Melbourne campaigning on the issue.
LOAD-DATE: November 14, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
334 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 14, 2014 Friday
The International New York Times
G-20 Aims for Growth in Member Countries
BYLINE: By SONIA KOLESNIKOV-JESSOP
SECTION: Section ; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Q&A; Pg.
LENGTH: 712 words
Leaders from the Group of 20 are meeting in Brisbane, Australia, on Saturday and Sunday to discuss greater economic cooperation, with the goal of increasing growth in member countries. Takehiko Nakao, president of the Asian Development Bank, spoke with Sonia Kolesnikov-Jessop.
Q. There are now concerns that the Federal Reserve may not start raising interest rates as soon as had been expected. If so, what are the implications for Asia?
A. If the rise in U.S. interest rates were more gradual, it would make the adjustment easier in Asia and allow monetary authorities to focus on growth. In May last year, the first hint of tapering from the Fed caused some turbulence in stock and foreign exchange markets. However, since then those affected economies have restabilized and Asian markets seem to have already factored in possible impacts of tapering or interest rate increases.
Over all, I believe Asian economies are now well prepared for any shocks, with prudent macroeconomic policies, strong financial sectors, and large foreign reserves.
Q. What can the G-20 nations do to help build a ''resilient'' global economy?
A. The G-20 wants to boost output by at least two percent in the next five years. For this purpose, it is advocating investment in infrastructure. In Asia alone, the A.D.B. estimates $800 billion of investment in infrastructure is needed a year. Countries should mobilize domestic resources, including tax revenues, but also use private sector funds, including through public-private partnerships. It is also critical that countries pursue sound macroeconomic and structural policies to promote growth.
Q. What are your views on the Chinese proposal for an Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank?
A. I am not worried about competition from new banks like the A.I.I.B. The infrastructure needs of Asia and the Pacific region are huge. So the idea of an A.I.I.B. to provide additional resources for infrastructure investments is understandable.
Q. What can the A.I.I.B. do that the World Bank or the A.D.B. are not already doing?
A. It's probably too early to predict. Once it is formally established, the A.D.B. can consider appropriate collaboration. But it will be vitally important that the A.I.I.B. adopts international standards in procurement and environmental and social safeguards in its projects and programs.
Q. What is the A.D.B. doing to make itself more relevant to an increasingly developed region?
A. We will scale up our assistance in such areas as private-sector development, climate change, disaster risk prevention and management, and social protection. We are also doubling our investments in health and education.
Q. The president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Suma Chakrabarti, recently said that the world's regional development banks needed to work together better.
A. We share the same challenges: persistent poverty, rising inequality, and climate change, to name a few. We have a better chance of achieving the U.N.'s Millennium Development Goals and its successor, the Sustainable Development Goals, if we work together.
Q. Some argue that the real challenge when it comes to infrastructure is not so much money as a lack of bankable projects?
A. One of the A.D.B.'s key roles is to help make infrastructure projects more attractive to the private sector. We are increasing our support to member countries in improving the investment climate through legal and regulatory frameworks, and finding good projects for public-private partnerships. We've just established a dedicated public-private partnerships office to strengthen our work in this area by giving advice governments need to make projects investor-friendly.
Q. Many Asian countries have stepped up anticorruption efforts. Where have you seen improvement and what should still be done?
A. Eradicating corruption, in our view, is not just about social fairness, but a key ingredient of sustainable economic growth and development. There has been some good progress in Asia. For example, anti-corruption efforts in our host country, the Philippines, are a key reason its economy has attracted more foreign direct investment lately. But Asia still has a long way to go. Countries need to have solid anticorruption frameworks, and rigorous enforcement of law.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/business/international/g20-takehiko-nakao-asian-development-bank.html
LOAD-DATE: November 14, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Special Report
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
335 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 14, 2014 Friday
Late Edition - Final
Liberal Donors Looking 6 Years Ahead
BYLINE: By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 13
LENGTH: 1067 words
WASHINGTON -- There was no ideological soul-searching, few recriminations aimed at political strategists, and little backbiting or assignment of blame.
Instead, the nation's leading club of liberal philanthropists and political donors, gathered in Washington for a four-day strategy session, appeared ready to shrug off the drubbing Democrats suffered in the midterm elections last week, instead laying plans for what they hoped would be a long-term resurgence of progressive ideas.
Donors and officials involved with the group, the Democracy Alliance, said they did not believe the elections had fundamentally upended their assumptions about what Democrats and liberal organizations needed to do to regain power in Congress and state capitols -- a significant difference from their counterparts on the right, who answered their substantial losses in the 2012 presidential election with a top-down effort to broaden the appeal of the Republican Party and the political capabilities of grass-roots organizations.
In a sign of how the passions of large donors have come to define the landscape of issues in national elections, alliance members are poised to expand funding to fight for climate-change measures and restrictions on money in politics. Neither issue galvanized enough midterm voters to sway pivotal Senate or House races, despite the tens of millions of dollars wealthy donors spent promoting them.
The alliance is also redoubling efforts to organize what it calls the new American electorate -- Latinos, blacks, young people and single women -- amid signs that the conservative tilt and high political participation of older white voters have given the Republican Party a significant advantage in midterm elections. The alliance's president, Gara LaMarche, said it was not planning to expand fund-raising for Democratic ''super PACs'' and advertising-oriented outside groups, which spent tens of millions of dollars attacking Republicans in the last election cycle but have complained about being outraised and outspent by their Republican counterparts.
''I don't think the way to read the election, tough as it was, is as invalidating the core truth of some of these approaches,'' Mr. LaMarche said.
The alliance has more than 100 members, about 20 of them added in the last year. It includes major liberal donors like the retired hedge-fund founder George Soros and Tim Gill, the country's leading giver to gay-rights causes, as well as top labor-union officials. Historically, the alliance has focused on building infrastructure for the left, such as the voter data cooperative Catalist; the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank; and Media Matters for America, which seeks to counteract what it considers conservative influence in the news media.
Most of the groups for which the alliance itself raises money are nonprofits that do not report their donors, making it difficult to assess just how much money the network accumulates. Mr. LaMarche said donations earmarked through the alliance accounted for more than $30 million in 2014. But alliance members, known as partners, have contributed at least several times that amount to progressive organizations operating in national and state politics, as well as to Democratic super PACs.
Dozens of consultants and nonprofit executives milled around the Mandarin Oriental hotel on Thursday, seeking money, ideas or both. In the lobby, an organizer with Ready for Warren, a super PAC hoping to draft Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts into the 2016 presidential race, kept her eyes peeled for big donors who might be persuaded to back the effort. In the hotel restaurant, alumni of Hillary Rodham Clinton's political operation caught up over lunch.
Ms. Warren, popular among many Democracy Alliance members, spoke at the start of a panel on Thursday dedicated to one of the alliance's top priorities: building a more politically potent message around rising wealth inequality and the declining economic prospects of the middle class. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. will speak on Friday at the closing-night gala.
The main focus this week will be a proposed six-year plan, titled Vision 2020, to rebuild liberal power in hopes of a Democratic resurgence in Washington.
The plan, a copy of which was reviewed by The New York Times, sets out four goals for alliance-funded organizations: to motivate progressives, persuade independents, increase funding for liberal groups, and ''divide the right and reduce its funding and support.''
The title is a blunt acknowledgment that Republican control of Congress is likely to provide few openings for ambitious liberal policy making in the final two years of the Obama administration. It also reflects the alliance's belief that liberals are fighting on terrain largely defined in 2010, when Republicans won control of many state legislatures and governorships and used that power to draw safe districts for their party's majority in the House.
Guests at the event described the election results as discouraging but not surprising. In an email, Chris Lehane, a political strategist for the billionaire Tom Steyer, said he thought Mr. Steyer's spending on climate change issues had been effective in raising turnout among environmentalist-minded voters in states like Colorado, and in building activist networks in politically important states like Iowa.
''These conversations remind me very much of the conversations I had in 2004 about same-sex marriage, where there was a lack of understanding that social change is a longitudinal exercise but that it moves very quickly, and the party positioned on the issue is the party that benefits long-term,'' Mr. Lehane said. ''It is a sword to appeal to voters, like millennials, who will determine political winners and losers, as well as a sword to deflect the big-oil-funded Republican Party.''
Not all of the donors were satisfied. At a lunch session on Wednesday, Stephen D. Susman, a prominent trial lawyer based in New York and Texas, asked why pre-election polling had consistently overstated Democrats' share of the vote, and joked about filing a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all the donors who had given to Democrats in the belief that they were within striking distance of Republicans.
''A lot of us gave donations to candidates because the polls convinced us we could make a difference,'' Mr. Susman said in an interview on Thursday.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/us/politics/shaking-off-midterm-drubbing-liberal-donors-look-6-years-ahead.html
LOAD-DATE: November 14, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
336 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 14, 2014 Friday
Late Edition - Final
An Agreement on Climate Change
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; LETTERS; Pg. 26
LENGTH: 718 words
To the Editor:
Re ''U.S. and China Reach Agreement on Climate After Months of Talks'' (front page, Nov. 12):
It is good to see an American president deal with China as a respected member of the international community, a position it has earned. It is also excellent to see a Chinese president take a responsible position with regard to global climate change.
Now if only the Republican Party would join the world in recognizing the threat global warming presents and join President Obama in taking appropriate action, we might all breathe a sigh of relief.
MARVIN A. RAPS New York, Nov. 12, 2014
To the Editor:
I believe that the Chinese will actually try to honor the agreement. They are quickly realizing that the health of their citizens is at severe risk given the air quality in China and that it makes sense economically to make strides to clean the environment. They are facing severe health care costs in the future.
Next step, get India on board.
ROB DOUGHTY Colts Neck, N.J., Nov. 12, 2014
To the Editor:
The agreement with China announced this week is a huge step toward avoiding the worst effects of climate change. Republicans in Congress can't block the agreement, so they should start advocating for emission reduction mechanisms that don't increase regulations, expand government or slow economic growth.
A strategy called carbon fee-and-dividend meets all these criteria. A fee would be placed on each ton of carbon extracted or imported, and revenues would be returned to every household. Multiple studies have demonstrated that these dividend checks would stimulate the economy and offset higher energy prices for the vast majority of Americans. And best of all for conservatives, this market-based solution wouldn't result in expanded government or increased taxes.
Congressional Republicans should stop fighting efforts to address climate change and start advocating for solutions that are consistent with their values.
ERIC ETTLINGER Berkeley, Calif., Nov. 12, 2014
To the Editor:
I was delighted to read your two Nov. 12 Op-Ed essays about climate change, ''China, America and Our Warming Planet,'' by Secretary of State John Kerry (nytimes.com), and ''Wobbling on Climate Change,'' by Piers J. Sellers.
Mr. Kerry's announcement of the pact between China and the United States was rightly described as ''historic.'' Both sides agreed to agree, rather than to disagree. The Chinese proverb ''a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step'' is most appropriate. Agreeing to agree is the first step in this thousand-mile journey that we all face together and that we cannot make alone.
Mr. Sellers's description of how science gets blurred in political discussions was spot on. Although the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently issued another detailed report in its series that goes back many years, the fundamentals are very simple. We have been burning ever more fossil fuels, dumping ever more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It's past time to change course.
In future elections, voters need to demand that climate change be a front-burner political issue. Since many elections these days are close, we need only a relatively small percentage of voters to demand climate-consciousness in their candidates for them to win elections.
PETER McCULLOUGH Lutherville, Md., Nov. 12, 2014
To the Editor:
The announcement of the accord with China is not only good news for the climate, but also signals great promise to American business and job seekers.
With the world's two largest economies voicing a commitment to cutting carbon, demand for all renewable energy technologies will naturally soar. Even as 18,000 clean energy jobs were added during the third quarter of 2014, such rapid job expansion will pale in comparison going forward as manufacturers, developers and energy suppliers add employees to ramp up production, construction and deployment.
The agreement ought to spur an unprecedented sense of urgency among American policy makers. With a new Congress focused on restarting American manufacturing and spurring job growth, we must work to ensure that this impending economic explosion happens right here in the United States.
MICHAEL BROWER Washington, Nov. 12, 2014
The writer is president and chief executive of the American Council on Renewable Energy.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/opinion/an-agreement-on-climate-change.html
LOAD-DATE: November 14, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: DRAWING (DRAWING BY DOUG CHAYKA)
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Letter
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
337 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 13, 2014 Thursday 8:35 PM GMT
G20: Reality bites for coal and climate change;
Climate change almost forgotten in the cocoon of a coal sponsored energy forum in Brisbane
BYLINE: Graham Readfearn
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1538 words
In the corporatised and coal-company sponsored cocoon of a pre-G20 talkfest in Brisbane, the burst of vocal protest came like a sudden jolt of the reality of life outside.
" Peabody - we don't want your coal," came the loud but brief interlude from seven young climate change campaigners who rose to their feet to shout down Glenn Kellow, the chief operating officer of Peabody Energy, the world's biggest privately owned coal company.
The chants bounced around the ornate auditorium of Brisbane city hall for only 30 seconds or so, before the group joined hands and walked out into the scorching Brisbane sun.
Peabody Energy, the world's biggest privately-owned coal company, was the sole sponsor of the Global Café energy event, plugged by organisers Brisbane Marketing as a chance to explore the challenges of powering the economies of the world.
Kellow, based in St Louis but originally from Australia, was in the middle of yet another pitch from the coal industry arguing their product is the "cheapest" and best way to get electricity to the 1.2 billion people in the world who currently don't have it. He avoided the phrase "climate change".
As I've written before, coal's concern for the world's poor is either a sudden onset of benevolence or a cynical ploy to use people's genuine concern over poverty to sell more of their product.
Outside the entrance to the city hall, others from the Australian Youth Climate Coalition were handing out an open letter, co-signed by youth climate groups from 30 different countries. The letter reads:
We are compelled to write this letter because we believe that the coal lobby, led by Peabody Energy (the largest coal company in the world), is trying to unduly influence the outcome of the G20 Summit. Their agenda represents a threat to young people and future generations, and we urge you to listen to our message over that of vested interests. They claim that their industry will benefit the world's poor. But we know that the rapid expansion of the industry will cost those living under the poverty line their health and clean air - and they are also the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
The AYCC produced a video mocking some of the claims made by Peabody Energy, coal industry figures and Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott.
Climate science denial
When The Guardian's Suzanne Goldenberg visited Peabody Energy's North Antelope Rochelle mine in Wyoming, the world's biggest coal mine, getting the company to talk about climate change seemed to be an exercise in getting blood from a black lump of fossil fuel.
When Goldenberg eventually did extract a statement from the company's corporate communications boss Viv Svec, she was told the company regarded climate change as a "modelled crisis" and that there was "still far more understanding that is required" to justify any concerns over the impacts of carbon dioxide emissions.
Svec said: "Climate concerns are a threat, to the extent that they lead to policies that hurt people".
The company's latest Annual Report is just as dismissive of the position held by every major science academy in the world, that CO2 is causing climate change and that this is a problem.
The report describes the impacts of coal combustion on climate change as being only "perceived". The report says:
Concerns about the environmental impacts of coal combustion, including perceived impacts on global climate issues, are resulting in increased regulation of coal combustion in many jurisdictions and unfavorable lending policies by government-backed lending institutions and development banks toward the financing of new overseas coal-fueled power plants, and interest in further such regulation and policies, which could significantly affect demand for our products.
That's a long-winded way of saying firms like Peabody Energy are seeing some writing on the wall for their industry while at the same time dismissing the entire field of climate-related science and its related disciplines as mere "perceptions" rather than reality.
Bjorn Lomborg
Danish political scientist Dr Bjorn Lomborg, of the US based Copenhagen Consensus Center think tank, was also on Peabody Energy's bill at the Brisbane event (curiously neither Brisbane Marketing, Peabody Energy or the think tank itself have been willing to disclose who asked Dr Lomborg to attend ).
Lomborg also advocates that the world's poor need "cheap" fossil fuels and thinks that the world has many more important problems to face than climate change.
It is no secret that the cost of renewable energy technologies has been dropping like several sacks of stones.
John Connor, CEO of The Climate Institute who spoke in opposition to Lomborg, remarked that he was the "token carbon offset" in a line up of speakers dominated by fossil fuel industry figures.
He told the audience that analysts were already predicting that large scale solar power would be "cheaper than coal in China and India within the next five to ten years" and that wind energy was already "at parity with new coal in India".
In a later press conference, I asked Lomborg if there was a risk that by pushing fossil fuel power stations that last up to 40 years onto developing countries you effectively lock-in the world's poor to expensive electricity (even before you factor in the costs of the impacts of climate change or health problems that come from burning the coal). Lomborg said:
Right now the [International Energy Agency] estimate that even by 2040 sub-Saharan Africa will get somewhere between two and four per cent of its energy from renewables... sorry from new green energy. They will unfortunately get about 30 to 35 per cent from wood and dung which they definitely shouldn't be getting. It seems a good bet that if you want to help the world's poor you should get them on more power now and to a very large extent that's going to be fossil fuels.
Lomborg is referring here to "primary energy" - that's everything from oil for cars and generators to wood burned on fires to coal burned in power plants.
The International Energy Agency has just released a report on what it thinks will be happen to the energy mix in sub-Saharan Africa under its "new policies scenario". Lomborg's figures seem to be out of date.
The IEA says that in the year 2040, some 47 per cent of all energy in sub-Saharan Africa will come from burning biomass (wood, dung, coal etc) which it hopes will be burned in more efficient cookstoves that will reduce the health costs and deaths from indoor air pollution. Lomborg had this figure at 35 per cent.
By 2040, coal's share of primary energy actually drops from 18 per cent to 15 per cent. Oil provides 17 per cent of energy, gas about 11 per cent and renewables about nine per cent (almost six per cent of this is from 'new green energy' such as solar and wind with the rest coming from hydro power).
But here's the real kicker.
The IEA says its scenario for Africa is "broadly consistent" with global warming of between 3C and 6C for the continent by the end of this century with a wide array of dangerous and some might argue catastrophic impacts (some of which the IPCC says the continent would be powerless to adapt to).
What seems clear then is that the International Energy Agency's "new policies scenario" is not particularly appetising for Africa.
Big emitters strike deal
But back to Brisbane.
Within minutes of the brief protest from youth climate campaigners, there was another injection of reality.
News began filtering through of the deal between the leaders of the world's top two emitters of greenhouse gases - the United States and China.
The US would cut its emissions by between 26 and 28 per cent by 2025 and China promises its emissions will peak and start to fall by the year 2030 - all in the name of limiting global warming to 2C (whether these cuts are enough is questionable, with early analysis from one respected team of climate analysts suggesting even deeper cuts will be needed).
Inside the cocoon of an event where the main sponsors don't accept that human caused climate change is even real, the news from Beijing seemed to further outline how rapidly the world could change - whether the coal industry likes it or not.
As for this weekend's G20 Leaders Summit, Australia Prime Minister Tony Abbott has been coming under pressure to find a place for climate change in the discussions.
If the issue is raised behind the closed-doors sessions, then it will be against Abbott's wishes. Gone also, apparently, are discussions about cutting fossil fuel subsidies that have featured at previous G20 meetings (a new report finds G20 countries are subsidizing exploration for coal, oil and gas to the tune of US$88 billion a year - between $2.9 billion and $3.5 billion from Australia).
The contents of the glossy G20 "delegate publication" reveals much about how the hosts want world leaders to see the future.
In 158 pages of adverts, sponsored features, ministerial forewords and articles from academics and think tank fellows, there's a barrage of impenetrable corporate management speak concerned with "growth", "free trade" and "economic governance".
The phrase "climate change" appears only four times. The first two pages are devoted to an advert for the mining industry.
LOAD-DATE: November 13, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
338 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 13, 2014 Thursday 8:21 PM GMT
Congress to vote on Keystone pipeline in high-stakes challenge to Obama;
Senate and House of Representatives schedule votes to support controversial pipeline, hours after president announced historic emissions deal with China
BYLINE: Paul Lewis in Washington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 989 words
Both chambers of the US Congress will vote on a bill to approve the controversial Keystone XL pipeline in the coming days, in what could amount to an immediate challenge to Barack Obama's efforts to reduce global carbon emissions.
The decision by Democratic leaders in the Senate to schedule a vote for Tuesday next week on the Keystone legislation was taken after the party's Louisiana senator, Mary Landrieu, spent Wednesday afternoon engaged in a high-stakes bid to force the vote.
Landrieu, a longtime critic of Obama's energy policy, is locked in a tight re-election battle against the Republican congressman Bill Cassidy, which will be resolved in a runoff on 6 December, after neither managed to gain the 50% required for an outright victory in the midterms last week.
Less than 24 hours after Obama announced a deal with China to limit and reduce carbon emissions, Landrieu took the Senate floor to call for unanimous consent for a vote on her bill to approve the pipeline.
In the end, the Senate and the House of Representatives scheduled votes to support Keystone XL, which would transport crude oil from Canada to the Gulf coast in Texas. The House vote, which will almost certainly pass, will take place on Friday.
Keystone has been a political hot potato for the Obama administration, which has repeatedly delayed a decision over approval of the pipe. It is not clear whether Obama would give the project his consent.
But renewed pressure over the pipeline, which has become a proxy in the political battle over climate change in the US, was the last thing the White House wanted on the day it announced its agreement with China, which previously had only ever pledged to reduce the rapid rate of growth in its emissions. China said on Wednesday it would cap its output by 2030, and also promised to increase its use of energy from zero-emission sources to 20% by 2030.
As part of the deal, the US also agreed double the pace of its reductions in emissions, to between 26% and 28% below 2005 levels by 2025.
Keystone's backers argue that its construction will not increase carbon emissions, because if the project is vetoed Canadian oil would instead be transported to China. However, liberal Democrats and environmental campaigners have made Keystone a litmus test of the president's commitment to tackling climate change.
Landrieu, renowned as a political survivor, spent Wednesday afternoon walking on and off the Senate floor, rallying support for the legislation, which she co-authored with North Dakota's Republican senator, John Hoeven.
She repeatedly argued that the midterm results, in which Democrats were mostly defeated in key races and Republicans regained control of the Senate, were evidence that voters wanted bipartisan action.
Republicans do not take control of the Senate until January, and it had been widely expected that a vote on Keystone wait until then. But Landrieu said she wanted the issued decided immediately. "The public has clearly spoken," she said in one of several impassioned speeches. "The bill needs to be approved today. Not in January, not in February, not in March."
She was supported on the floor by three red-state Democrats who have long opposed Obama's climate-change policy: Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Jon Tester of Montana and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. All of them argued the message from the midterms was that voters wanted bipartisan action on issues such as Keystone.
Landrieu, the current chair of the Senate energy committee, made her support for the energy sector a centrepiece of her re-election campaign. Her failure to get a vote on Keystone has been used by Cassidy in campaigns ads as evidence that her claimed influence in Washington was overstated.
Yet on Wednesday Landrieu's political drive was not in doubt. Shortly after 5pm, and minutes before taking the Senate floor for the fourth time to make the formal request for the Keystone vote, she told reporters that her aim was to create jobs in her home state in Louisiana.
"This is not about credit," she said. "It is not about glory. It is not about politics."
A short while later, aides to both party leaders confirmed they had agreed to schedule a vote on Tuesday.
By then, Republicans had responded by tabling a vote on a parallel version of the bill, which will be held on Thursday.
The House version of the bill is co-sponsored by Cassidy, a move that would enable him to tell voters he was also responsible for any congressional approval.
Both Louisiana politicians are essentially locked in a race to claim credit for the legislation passing in their respective chambers, the result of which could be a bill approving the pipeline landing on Obama's desk within a week.
Landrieu conceded she did not have a commitment of support from Obama, whose consent is required for the pipeline to be built. "I do not know," she replied when asked if Obama would approve the legislation. "I do not have a commitment."
She also faces an uphill battle to persuade enough Democrats to back her bill. Senate rules mean she will need to secure 60 votes to win passage of the bill. "I think we got the 60 votes," she told reporters.
Even if the vote passes in both the House and Senate, the procedure for approving Keystone is currently subject to a Start Department review which has been delayed by litigation over a portion of the pipeline in Nebraska.
The White House shows no appetite for expediting that process.
"The view of the administration is that that process should continue and that that's the proper venue for determining whether the project should move forward," Obama's press secretary, Josh Earnest, told reporters travelling with the president in Burma.
"There has been other legislative proposals that have been floated to try to influence the outcome of this decision about the construction of the pipeline. The administration, as you know, has taken a dim view of these kinds of legislative proposals in the past."
LOAD-DATE: November 13, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
339 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 13, 2014 Thursday 7:00 PM GMT
Lightning strikes will increase due to climate change;
For every 1C of global warming lightning strikes will increase by about 12%, new research shows, but scientists don't yet know where increases will occur Video: Watch a year's worth of lightning strikes in the US
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 389 words
Lightning will strike far more frequently in a world under climate change - but researchers can still not predict exactly where or when those strikes will occur.
New research from the University of California, Berkeley, published on Thursday in the journal Science, found warming conditions would result in 50% more lightning strikes by the end of the century.
"For every two lightning strikes you had at the beginning of the century, we will have three at the end of the century," said David Romps, a researcher at the University of California, Berkeley.
Researchers have known for some time that climate change was producing more lightning strikes, and fatalities in developing countries have been rising in recent years. But the latest findings put a number on that rate of increase, using data from federal government scientific agencies.
The scientists found lightning strikes would increase by about 12% for every 1C of warming, resulting in about 50% more strikes by 2100.
At this point, however, the scientists are unable to predict where or when those strikes will occur. In the continental US, lightning strikes are especially common in the mid-west and the Tampa Bay area of Florida, so-called lightning alley.
"What we don't know is where those increases will occur in the future," Romps said. "It could be regions that get a lot of lightning strikes today will get even more in the future, or it could be that parts of the country that get very little lightning could get much in the future. We just don't know at this point."
The findings provide further evidence that climate change is having far greater effects on weather patterns than initially anticipated.
A few dozen people are killed in the US each year because of lightning strikes, with 25 so far this year, according to the National Weather Service.
Lightning strikes are also a leading cause of wildfires - and have been responsible in the past for some of the most devastating blazes in the south-west. The deadliest wildfire in 20 years, which killed 19 hotshot firefighters near Yarnell, Arizona, was caused by a lightning strike last year.
The researchers used data from federal government agencies to establish the connection between warming temperatures, more energetic storms, and increased lightning strikes, and combined the findings with 11 climate models.
LOAD-DATE: November 13, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
340 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 13, 2014 Thursday 6:18 PM GMT
Building a sustainable future: why energy efficiency is everybody's business;
Few dispute the need to make building stock more energy efficient. But is a lack of coherent central government thinking and bold grassroots leadership stalling progress?
BYLINE: Craig Scott
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 2157 words
Energy costs only account for 1-3% of a company's total outgoings, so making buildings more energy efficient isn't always a priority for hard-pressed business owners facing the daily challenge of turning a profit.
However, as 18% of the UK's carbon emissions come from non-domestic buildings, the government is keen to encourage property developers and commercial tenants to manage their energy more efficiently. To meet legally binding targets, the UK needs to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% from 1990 levels by 2050.
While the issue is a national one, much of the responsibility for enforcing legislation designed to tackle climate change comes down to local authorities. For instance, energy performance certificates (EPCs), which rate a building's energy efficiency on a sliding scale from A to G, are required when any building is sold, rented or constructed - it's the job of local authorities to check that these are present.
So what can local authorities do to ensure commercial landlords and tenants reduce their energy consumption? That question was at the centre of the Guardian roundtable debate, sponsored by Climaveneta, a provider of heating and air-conditioning products and services. The sustainability experts who took part in the debate were drawn from both the public and private sectors.
At the table
Jo Confino (chair), executive editor, Guardian News and Media
Jade Rickman, policy adviser, Confederation of British Industry (CBI)
Patrick Brown, assistant director, sustainability and construction, British Property Federation
Bruno Gardner, managing director, Low Carbon Workplace Partnership
Nick Hayes, head of sustainability, EC Harris
Richard Griffiths, senior policy and campaigns consultant, UK Green Building Council
Alastair Mant, director of sustainability, GVA
Paul Crewe, head of sustainability, engineering, energy and environment, J Sainsbury
Louise Clancy, principal policy and programme officer, Greater London Authority
Philip Draper, technical and sustainability manager, Broadgate Estates
Lydia Dutton, project manager (environmental), Argent LLP
Nicky Wightman, Savills Earth and Innovation
John Baker, sales director, Climaveneta
Andrea Bertelle, communications manager, Climaveneta
To begin the discussion, Bruno Gardner, managing director of the Low Carbon Workplace Partnership, said that broadly speaking he thought the UK was making good headway on tackling climate change but "progress is not as rapid as we need it to be to meet our 2050 targets".
So what could propel the UK forward? Richard Griffiths, senior policy and campaigns consultant at the UK Green Building Council, said Ofgem's recent warnings over energy blackouts should focus attention on the need to save energy. "Threatening people with the lights being turned off is a pretty good way to do that."
Other participants suggested the "landlord-tenant divide" was at the heart of the problem. In other words, landlords don't feel inclined to improve the energy efficiency of their buildings as they won't reap the benefits - it will be the tenant who enjoys the cheaper bills.
Philip Draper, technical and sustainability manager from Broadgate Estates, said that landlords were also reluctant to take the risk of installing new, innovative energy-saving and monitoring technologies on commercial buildings until someone else proves that they work.
Assistant director at the British Property Federation Patrick Brown said another disincentive for landlords to carry out lengthy retrofitting projects was that responsibility for paying business rates reverted to a landlord when their property stood empty. Councils should extend business rates relief so there is no disincentive to carry out refurbishments, he suggested.
Despite such obstructions, most participants believed local authorities did aim to support businesses and new developments that plan to be energy efficient. "They want to help out, but it comes down to a lack of knowledge," said Draper. "They're keen to push CHPs [combined heat and power]. They're very keen to push the simple solution, but not always the right one."
Draper suggested that no one in local government was prepared to "put their head above the parapet", circumnavigating planning guidance in search of new solutions.
John Baker, sales director, Climaveneta, took up this point, telling the roundtable about one of his clients who couldn't get planning permission for installing innovative energy-efficient measures as it was blocked by existing legislation. "The scheme they were looking at didn't have the CHP box ticked so they weren't able to deploy it," he said.
Griffiths had some sympathy for councils struggling to play a more effective role. "They just don't have any money," he said. Expanding his point, he told the participants that two-thirds of buildings that should have EPCs don't. "For so many buildings not to have them is a pretty poor state of affairs and local authorities are responsible for that," he said. "They just don't have the resources to check that EPCs are being handed out."
There was an opportunity here for councils to raise much-needed funds, he said. As of April 2018, all rented properties will require a minimum energy performance standard (Meps), which will be based on the existing EPC rating system. Landlords won't be able to let out buildings that don't get a high enough rating. The legislation has the potential to remove many of the worse-performing buildings out of the UK stock, said Griffiths. "Yet if the EPCs aren't enforced, that legislation falls flat on its face."
He suggested that local authorities could keep any money generated from fining landlords for not meeting Meps and re-invest it in enforcement. "This isn't them being progressive - it's just them doing their job," he said.
Local councils "should be leading on EPCs (Energy Performance Certificate), not dragging their feet," agreed Alastair Mant, director of sustainability at property consultant GVA. But he conceded that councils had a difficult job enforcing so many government regulations without adding further complexity to the policy landscape.
Jade Rickman, a CBI policy adviser, said that most businesses were keen to embrace energy-efficiency measures for cost-saving, reputational, or security-of-supply reasons, but they were hampered by a lack of coherence within the various government policies. "What we need is a roadmap for businesses on what will work and to link up the policy landscape," she said.
Paul Crewe, head of sustainability, engineering, energy and environment at Sainsbury's, agreed: "Having that consistency across the UK would enable businesses to invest or refurbish, and allow us to plan and be sure of what is required."
Louise Clancy, principal programme and policy officer at the Greater London Authority (GLA), defended the coherence of her authority's policies: "We have the London Plan, which for larger developments has given a lot of clarity."
However, Crewe was adamant that businesses hoping to improve their energy efficiency were being held back by legislation and poor infrastructure. He told the roundtable about his firm's plan to build a huge zero-carbon depot complete with 10MW of photovoltaic off-grid power. "Because the grid capacity was so old I couldn't connect, so that whole 10MW couldn't be implemented. It was very frustrating."
This needs to be addressed sooner rather than later, said Crewe, as Sainsbury's uses "just under 1% of all power in the UK".
Many delegates thought that local authorities could champion organisations that are striving to become more energy efficient. A number of participants mentioned the GLA's Business Energy Challenge, which encourages businesses to voluntarily reduce their carbon emissions and recognises the best performers at an awards ceremony.
Another benefit of the awards, said Clancy, was that companies who entered had provided the GLA with a huge amount of data about their energy performance. This had allowed the GLA to get a better idea of what a good-performing building in London looks like.
Such data collection is key to improving energy efficiency, agreed Gardner, as it introduces transparency, allowing organisations to compete by creating a pull for commercial tenants who want to rent the best-performing buildings.
Griffiths told delegates about another example of best practice among city governments: an Australian scheme called Nabers, originally developed in Melbourne and Sydney. It measures the environmental performance of Australian buildings and awards them a rating. "If you walk through the Central Business District in Sydney, on every building advert you see their energy efficiency rating - that builds awareness in the community," he said.
If local authorities mandated the rollout of display energy certificates (DECs), which rate a building's operational energy use, that would have a similar awareness-raising effect in the UK, the roundtable heard. Currently, DECs are only required to be displayed on public-sector buildings.
Andrea Bertelle, Climaveneta's communications manager, said the Nabers scheme worked well because "it identified the right business case. As the government had an influence it become popular in private-sector buildings and the sharp focus of regulations created an environment for advanced solutions."
Nicky Wightman from Savills Earth and Innovation, said: "What Melbourne does incredibly well is that they make the connection between sustainability and a general fantastic sense of living there; they really create that sense of city, sense of space - that's a really good lesson."
Nick Hayes, head of sustainability at EC Harris, said that behavioural change among the people using a building is often the best way to improve its efficiency. Buildings are efficient until you put people in them, the roundtable heard.
Gardner agreed, highlighting Carbon Trust research that found that about 40% additional emissions can be added to a building from how it was designed to its in-use performance because of the misuse of equipment and facilities.
Lydia Dutton, environmental project manager at Argent LLP, said that lessons could be learned from the New York City Carbon Challenge, which aims to reduce the city's greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2030. Companies taking part that have successfully reduced their emissions were shown to be open-minded about who can help them achieve their goals and also benefited from strong leadership, which helped achieve buy-in from everyone in the company.
Drawing the debate to a close, Griffiths said that he would mark the UK four out of 10 on the job of making buildings more energy efficient. Like most contributors to the discussion, he thought that the UK had an incredibly progressive policy landscape aimed at improving energy efficiency but the legislation wasn't linking up as it should. He concluded: "We'd get lots of marks for effort, but not so many for outcomes."
Key discussion points
The UK has a huge array of policies aimed at improving the energy efficiency of commercial buildings and more in the pipeline. Some key policies include:
· Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs). Mandatory certificate that rates a building's energy efficiency on a sliding scale from A to G. Needed when a building is sold, rented or constructed.
· Minimum Energy Performance Standards (Meps). From April 2018, it will be unlawful to let properties that fail to achieve a prescribed Meps. It is expected that this minimum standard will be equivalent to an EPC rating of E.
· The CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme. A mandatory carbon emissions reporting scheme that cover all organisations in the UK using more than 6,000MWh per year of electricity.
· Display Energy Certificates (DECs) Distinct from EPCs, which provide a theoretical rating, DECs focus on operational energy use. Currently only required in buildings occupied by the public sector.
More from the series:
Sustainable office buildings are about saving costs as well as saving the planet
Sustainability of buildings: what might a low carbon future look like? - video
Building development: experts share how sustainability can be prioritised - video
The energy efficient buildings in focus is funded by Climaveneta. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled brought to you by. Find out more here .
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: November 13, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
341 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 13, 2014 Thursday 4:20 PM GMT
Correction Appended
China-US carbon deal: A historic milestone in the global fight against climate change;
After 20 years of tortuous negotiations the agreement struck by the US and China marks the start of a solution to global warming
BYLINE: Damian Carrington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 719 words
Be in no doubt, the agreement struck by the US and China on Wednesday to cut their carbon emissions is historic. It is the biggest step towards achieving a meaningful global deal to fight climate change in 20 years of tortuous negotiations. But also be in no doubt that, while absolutely necessary, it is a long way from being sufficient. As President Barack Obama says, it is a "milestone" - a marker on a longer journey.
Without sharp and rapid cuts in greenhouse gases the world faces "severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts" on people and the natural natural world: floods, droughts and even wars. That conclusion from the world's scientists was signed off on 2 November by 194 nations.
But no progress was going to happen without the world's two biggest polluters, the US and China. The deal they have struck has the potential to end the stand-off that doomed efforts to sign a global deal in Copenhagen in 2009. That coalition of the unwilling is now becoming a coalition of the willing.
The difficulty of tackling climate change cannot be overestimated. Emissions now mean damage later, making it tempting to stall. It is a "global commons" problem - the solution requires all nations to act together, not alone. Moreover, in practical terms, it requires re-engineering the entire world's energy system, which is itself the engine of the global economy. And there's the huge challenge of solving global poverty along the way.
With so much at stake, the negotiations are the among the toughest the world's nations have ever undertaken. But, put bluntly, it's a haggle. There is a limit to how much CO2 can be pumped into the atmosphere before dangerous climate change becomes inevitable. The bartering is over how much of that remaining space each nation deserves to get.
The significance of the China-US deal is that they have now put their first serious offers on the table. In fact they have done so early - the deadline for these bids set by the UN was March 2015. The deadline for a final global deal is December 2015 in Paris. Until now, it was unclear that deal would be done. But the US-China agreement has injected that most precious and rare of commodities into global climate negotiations: momentum.
There is a long way to go yet. The measures announced by the US and China fall well short of what is needed to defeat global warming. The key, as in any haggle, is to keep upping the bids.
Obama said the US pledge to cut carbon by 26-28% by 2025, compared to 2005 levels, would double the pace at which it is reducing its emissions. But it's a smaller cut than that agreed in October by the EU. Its 40% cut by 2030 is compared to a higher baseline of 1990. China has pledged to get 20% of its power from zero-carbon sources by 2030. But is already on track for 15% by 2020.
The signal that these are opening bids is in the qualifying language. China's emissions will reach their peak by 2030 "or earlier". The EU's carbon cut is "at least" 40%.
The US-China deal is also highly significant in the clear signal it sends to the energy industry, who will invest trillions of dollars in the coming decades. China has said clearly for the first time that its huge hunger for coal will soon be sated. The US has said its wants to use less oil and gas, not more. Those are warning signs for today's climate deal refuseniks, coal-rich Australia and oil-sand-rich Canada, and their fossil fuel friends.
Instead, the US-China deal points to clean and renewable energy as the place for the smart money to go. China's pledge of 20% clean energy by 2030 means 800-1,000GW of new wind, solar, nuclear and other zero-emission technology. That addition alone is about the same size as the entire US electricity sector today.
John Kerry, US secretary of state, provided a clear-headed summary of Wednesday's US-China agreement. "There is no question that all of us will need to do more to push toward the de-carbonisation of the global economy. But in climate diplomacy, as in life, you have to start at the beginning, and this breakthrough marks a fresh beginning."
Finally, 25 years after the world was first warned that global warming was a serious problem, we have reached the start of the solution.
· This article was amended on 13 November 2014. An earlier version said "underestimated" where "overestimated" was meant.
LOAD-DATE: November 13, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
CORRECTION-DATE: November 16, 2014
CORRECTION: "The difficulty of tackling climate change cannot be underestimated," we said in an analysis piece about an agreement between China and the US to lower greenhouse-gas emissions ( World's two big polluters finally get serious about climate change, 13 November, page 23). The difficulty cannot be overestimated, we meant to say. As the entry in the Guardian style guide on underestimate says: "Take care that you don't mean overestimate or overstate. We often get this wrong."
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
342 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 13, 2014 Thursday 3:35 PM GMT
Secret talks and a personal letter: how the US-China climate deal was done;
A visit to Beijing by Kerry and a missive from Obama were key moments in a nine-month negotiation between the world's biggest polluters
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg US environment correspondent
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1102 words
The climate deal announced on Wednesday between the world's two biggest carbon polluters was struck after a personal letter from Barack Obama, and nine months of intensive diplomacy. But American and Chinese officials had been in search of an agreement - through official meetings and back-channel negotiations - since the days when George Bush was president.
The plan unveiled in Beijing by Obama and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, commits the two countries to ambitious cuts to greenhouse gas emissions after 2020, and could spur other big polluters to similar efforts.
After years of mistrust, the deal began to coalesce last spring after Obama sent a personal letter to Xi suggesting the two countries start to move in tandem to cut carbon pollution, the White House said.
The immediate inspiration for the letter arose from a visit to Beijing by John Kerry, the US secretary of state. Kerry, who had a strong environmental record when he was a senator, raised climate change to a top priority after taking over at State. He floated the idea of setting joint targets in his meetings with Chinese officials, a senior administration official said.
"The idea was first hatched in a bilateral visit that Secretary Kerry had in early February, where he broached it with the Chinese," the official said. "And when the Chinese side seemed potentially receptive, we followed up with that letter from President Obama to President Xi."
What came next was a flurry of diplomatic meetings - including a pivotal encounter on the sidelines of the United Nations climate summit in September between Obama and the Chinese vice-premier Zhang Gaoli, who has charge of climate and energy.
At the time, there was speculation that China would use the spotlight of the UN summit to announce a date for peaking emissions. That did not materialise.
The timing was too close to the midterm elections and China was adamant about making the historic announcement from home turf, those who have followed the talks closely said.
But the White House said Zhang did tell Obama during a meeting that China wanted to move ahead quickly on a separate climate deal.
"The message from Vice-Premier Zhang Gaoli was that President Xi was interested in taking the president's offer up and moving forward with this announcement when we were in Beijing," the official said.
A number of US officials were dispatched to Beijing, including the senior White House adviser on climate policy, John Podesta, and the State Department climate change envoy, Todd Stern, the White House said.
By early November, officials were parsing the language of an eventual announcement - a process that evidently went down to the wire, in the official's account.
"We were here the week before last and had intensive discussions about what our respective targets would look like, and then finally were able to negotiate a text which was finalised late yesterday."
By the time it reached that crunch point, however, US and Chinese officials had spent the better part of two years trying to overcome their mutual suspicion - and nearly a decade in on-off negotiations for a two-way climate deal.
After the disaster of the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009, when Obama was on the receiving end of a pointed diplomatic snub from Chinese officials, the two countries began to put in the hard work needed to repair the relationship.
As those familiar with United Nations climate negotiations recognised, there was no other way. China and America between them are responsible for 42% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the US EIA's 2012 data.
Unless they were serious about cutting carbon pollution, there was no hope of fighting climate change.
The primacy of the US-Chinese relationship was familiar to a number of highly placed officials in the Obama administration.
Beginning in late 2007, when George Bush was president, a group of leading Republicans and Democrats led two secretive missions to China to try to secure a bilateral climate agreement.
The initiative included John Holdren, now the White House science adviser, and culminated in a meeting at a luxury hotel at the Great Wall of China in July 2008.
It also produced a draft agreement in March 2009, two months after Obama took office, but it was never signed. Obama's hopes of passing a climate law died in Congress.
After his re-election, however, Obama recommitted to fighting climate change, and again took up pursuit of the China deal.
"At the beginning of the second term the president recognised that he had to both take domestic action to have credibility but also to begin bilateral negotiations with China to actually bend down the global emissions curve," said Paul Bledsoe, a climate change official under Bill Clinton. "From the moment of his re-election, this process began. This is essentially the culmination of two years of effort, recognising that until Chinese emissions begin to decline, global emissions cannot decline. That is just the reality of the problem."
On the diplomatic track, US and Chinese officials were signing agreements to work together on developing technologies for the smart grid, cleaner vehicles and energy-saving buildings.
The trust-building exercises paid off. In June 2013 Obama and Xi reached an agreement to phase out the super-pollutant HFCs - an extremely potent greenhouse gas used in air conditioners and refrigerators. Industrialised countries adopted the agreement a few months later.
Obama, meanwhile, began assembling evidence that he was serious about cutting greenhouse gas emissions at home - and not just demanding such actions from other countries.
Shortly after the HFC deal, Obama unveiled his signature plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, the single biggest source of carbon pollution.
China also began to put its own house in order, spurred in part by deadly air pollution levels from coal-fired power plants. In 2011, the Chinese government for the first time set targets for a less polluting course of growth, and began rolling out new solar and wind plants. Seven regions introduced carbon trading schemes.
By the beginning of this year, all the pieces were beginning to fall into place. It had been, in Bledsoe's view, the work of a decade. "Todd [Stern] and Podesta and Holdren were all working on these issues in the late 1990s," he said.
"Until about two or three years ago there was still a broader focus on the UN negotiations rather than the bilateral relationship with China as the sine qua non of climate protection. That is what changed after the re-election: the recognition that this was essentially the only game in town."
LOAD-DATE: November 13, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
343 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 13, 2014 Thursday 11:35 AM GMT
G20: Reality bites for coal and climate change;
Climate change almost forgotten in the cocoon of a coal sponsored energy forum in Brisbane
BYLINE: Graham Readfearn
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1538 words
In the corporatised and coal-company sponsored cocoon of a pre-G20 talkfest in Brisbane, the burst of vocal protest came like a sudden jolt of the reality of life outside.
" Peabody - we don't want your coal," came the loud but brief interlude from seven young climate change campaigners who rose to their feet to shout down Glenn Kellow, the chief operating officer of Peabody Energy, the world's biggest privately owned coal company.
The chants bounced around the ornate auditorium of Brisbane city hall for only 30 seconds or so, before the group joined hands and walked out into the scorching Brisbane sun.
Peabody Energy, the world's biggest privately-owned coal company, was the sole sponsor of the Global Café energy event, plugged by organisers Brisbane Marketing as a chance to explore the challenges of powering the economies of the world.
Kellow, based in St Louis but originally from Australia, was in the middle of yet another pitch from the coal industry arguing their product is the "cheapest" and best way to get electricity to the 1.2 billion people in the world who currently don't have it. He avoided the phrase "climate change".
As I've written before, coal's concern for the world's poor is either a sudden onset of benevolence or a cynical ploy to use people's genuine concern over poverty to sell more of their product.
Outside the entrance to the city hall, others from the Australian Youth Climate Coalition were handing out an open letter, co-signed by youth climate groups from 30 different countries. The letter reads:
We are compelled to write this letter because we believe that the coal lobby, led by Peabody Energy (the largest coal company in the world), is trying to unduly influence the outcome of the G20 Summit. Their agenda represents a threat to young people and future generations, and we urge you to listen to our message over that of vested interests. They claim that their industry will benefit the world's poor. But we know that the rapid expansion of the industry will cost those living under the poverty line their health and clean air - and they are also the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
The AYCC produced a video mocking some of the claims made by Peabody Energy, coal industry figures and Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott.
Climate science denial
When The Guardian's Suzanne Goldenberg visited Peabody Energy's North Antelope Rochelle mine in Wyoming, the world's biggest coal mine, getting the company to talk about climate change seemed to be an exercise in getting blood from a black lump of fossil fuel.
When Goldenberg eventually did extract a statement from the company's corporate communications boss Viv Svec, she was told the company regarded climate change as a "modelled crisis" and that there was "still far more understanding that is required" to justify any concerns over the impacts of carbon dioxide emissions.
Svec said: "Climate concerns are a threat, to the extent that they lead to policies that hurt people".
The company's latest Annual Report is just as dismissive of the position held by every major science academy in the world, that CO2 is causing climate change and that this is a problem.
The report describes the impacts of coal combustion on climate change as being only "perceived". The report says:
Concerns about the environmental impacts of coal combustion, including perceived impacts on global climate issues, are resulting in increased regulation of coal combustion in many jurisdictions and unfavorable lending policies by government-backed lending institutions and development banks toward the financing of new overseas coal-fueled power plants, and interest in further such regulation and policies, which could significantly affect demand for our products.
That's a long-winded way of saying firms like Peabody Energy are seeing some writing on the wall for their industry while at the same time dismissing the entire field of climate-related science and its related disciplines as mere "perceptions" rather than reality.
Bjorn Lomborg
Danish political scientist Dr Bjorn Lomborg, of the US based Copenhagen Consensus Center think tank, was also on Peabody Energy's bill at the Brisbane event (curiously neither Brisbane Marketing, Peabody Energy or the think tank itself have been willing to disclose who asked Dr Lomborg to attend ).
Lomborg also advocates that the world's poor need "cheap" fossil fuels and thinks that the world has many more important problems to face than climate change.
It is no secret that the cost of renewable energy technologies has been dropping like several sacks of stones.
John Connor, CEO of The Climate Institute who spoke in opposition to Lomborg, remarked that he was the "token carbon offset" in a line up of speakers dominated by fossil fuel industry figures.
He told the audience that analysts were already predicting that large scale solar power would be "cheaper than coal in China and India within the next five to ten years" and that wind energy was already "at parity with new coal in India".
In a later press conference, I asked Lomborg if there was a risk that by pushing fossil fuel power stations that last up to 40 years onto developing countries you effectively lock-in the world's poor to expensive electricity (even before you factor in the costs of the impacts of climate change or health problems that come from burning the coal). Lomborg said:
Right now the [International Energy Agency] estimate that even by 2040 sub-Saharan Africa will get somewhere between two and four per cent of its energy from renewables... sorry from new green energy. They will unfortunately get about 30 to 35 per cent from wood and dung which they definitely shouldn't be getting. It seems a good bet that if you want to help the world's poor you should get them on more power now and to a very large extent that's going to be fossil fuels.
Lomborg is referring here to "primary energy" - that's everything from oil for cars and generators to wood burned on fires to coal burned in power plants.
The International Energy Agency has just released a report on what it thinks will be happen to the energy mix in sub-Saharan Africa under its "new policies scenario". Lomborg's figures seem to be out of date.
The IEA says that in the year 2040, some 47 per cent of all energy in sub-Saharan Africa will come from burning biomass (wood, dung, coal etc) which it hopes will be burned in more efficient cookstoves that will reduce the health costs and deaths from indoor air pollution. Lomborg had this figure at 35 per cent.
By 2040, coal's share of primary energy actually drops from 18 per cent to 15 per cent. Oil provides 17 per cent of energy, gas about 11 per cent and renewables about nine per cent (almost six per cent of this is from 'new green energy' such as solar and wind with the rest coming from hydro power).
But here's the real kicker.
The IEA says its scenario for Africa is "broadly consistent" with global warming of between 3C and 6C for the continent by the end of this century with a wide array of dangerous and some might argue catastrophic impacts (some of which the IPCC says the continent would be powerless to adapt to).
What seems clear then is that the International Energy Agency's "new policies scenario" is not particularly appetising for Africa.
Big emitters strike deal
But back to Brisbane.
Within minutes of the brief protest from youth climate campaigners, there was another injection of reality.
News began filtering through of the deal between the leaders of the world's top two emitters of greenhouse gases - the United States and China.
The US would cut its emissions by between 26 and 28 per cent by 2025 and China promises its emissions will peak and start to fall by the year 2030 - all in the name of limiting global warming to 2C (whether these cuts are enough is questionable, with early analysis from one respected team of climate analysts suggesting even deeper cuts will be needed).
Inside the cocoon of an event where the main sponsors don't accept that human caused climate change is even real, the news from Beijing seemed to further outline how rapidly the world could change - whether the coal industry likes it or not.
As for this weekend's G20 Leaders Summit, Australia Prime Minister Tony Abbott has been coming under pressure to find a place for climate change in the discussions.
If the issue is raised behind the closed-doors sessions, then it will be against Abbott's wishes. Gone also, apparently, are discussions about cutting fossil fuel subsidies that have featured at previous G20 meetings (a new report finds G20 countries are subsidizing exploration for coal, oil and gas to the tune of US$88 billion a year - between $2.9 billion and $3.5 billion from Australia).
The contents of the glossy G20 "delegate publication" reveals much about how the hosts want world leaders to see the future.
In 158 pages of adverts, sponsored features, ministerial forewords and articles from academics and think tank fellows, there's a barrage of impenetrable corporate management speak concerned with "growth", "free trade" and "economic governance".
The phrase "climate change" appears only four times. The first two pages are devoted to an advert for the mining industry.
LOAD-DATE: November 13, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
344 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 13, 2014 Thursday 10:26 AM GMT
G20 leaders to meet in Australia under pressure to prove group's relevance;
Brisbane's to-do list is clear - action on tax avoidance, free trade, energy efficiency and infrastructure funding. What's unclear is if the talks will make any difference
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, Australian political editor
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 1667 words
In 2008 when the global economy was in crisis, the G20 stepped up. But in the six years since it has become better known for the protests it attracts than the progress it has made on its central goals of promoting growth and strengthening international economic institutions.
So when the leaders meet again this weekend in Brisbane, Australia, they will be under pressure to achieve something tangible for the gathering to prove its relevance. But it is not at all clear that the "announceables" - the outcomes pre-negotiated by officials after a full year of meetings - will be sufficient to achieve that goal.
Mike Callaghan, director of the G20 studies centre at the Lowy Institute thinktank, argues that while the first three G20 leaders' summits in Washington, London and Pittsburgh helped coordinate fiscal and monetary stimulus and avert an even more severe economic crisis, the organisation now risks losing focus.
With no secretariat, no treaty or legal instrument to back up its decisions and no power to force member nations to do anything, the G20's effectiveness has to be measured by its capacity to influence member states.
Former first deputy managing director of the IMF John Lipsky argued in a speech earlier this year that "it is hard to say with certainty that any G20 member has altered its policy plans in the interest of achieving greater policy coherence - and therefore effectiveness - with its G20 partners".
And, Lipsky said, it was "felt widely that the agenda over time had become overburdened with worthy issues, but ones that were not within the direct purview of the G20, that tended to dilute the focus of the summits, and that didn't lead to clear conclusions or actionable results."
Also undermining the organisation's credibility is the fact that it has been unable to deliver on previous headline commitments.
In 2010, for example, the G20 agreed to what were widely called "historic" reforms to the governance of the International Monetary Fund to recognise the growing power of emerging markets. They were supported by the US administration, but remain blocked in the US Congress. In the meantime the Brics nations - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa - became so frustrated they have moved to set up a development bank of their own.
That directly undermines one reason given back in 2008 for the G20 to take over as a leaders' forum coordinating global economic policies - that its membership better reflects the realities of the modern global economy.
When it took over as G20 president in 2014, Australia was determined to bolster its influence by focusing squarely on the organisation's original goals - economic growth, stronger financial institutions and free trade. It was so determined negotiators should keep focused it decreed the final communique could be no longer than three pages (something it appears will only be achieved by the addition of voluminous appendices).
The three pages remain under wraps but the basics of what is supposed to be agreed in Brisbane are clear.
The Brisbane action plan
In February the G20 finance ministers agreed to list new policies that could boost the collective growth of their economies by an extra 2% over the next five years - which would be worth $2tn if it ever happened. The Brisbane action plan will list the 1,000 or more nominated policies, which makes it a lot more detailed than the St Petersburg action plan from the last G20 summit, where the commitments were pretty brief and vague.
While the cynical could argue it had probably already occurred to most of the G20 leaders that economic growth was a good thing to aim for, those closely involved in these negotiations insist the process has meant some countries have put forward policies they had not previously considered. And the G20 does have a "peer review" process to determine whether countries implement the policies on their list. But Australia's own list of policies demonstrates the limitations of the process - containing several measures that have not, and may never, pass the parliament.
Civil society groups are concerned the action plan - at Australia's instigation, they claim - now omits previous references to the need for "inclusive" economic growth that does not exacerbate inequality.
"The Australian government has refused to commit to inclusive growth and does not acknowledge the impact of inequality on growth. Financial institutions and many other G20 governments do recognise the issue as a threat to growth and among them is next year's host, Turkey," Oxfam spokeswoman Claire Spoors says.
Tim Costello, chief executive of World Vision and co-chair of the C20, a civil society process feeding into G20 deliberations, also says "it appears the language about equality and inclusive growth has been taken out and we are hearing that is at Australia's instigation".
The Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, insists the growth plan would automatically translate into additional jobs, but civil society observers like Costello insist this is not necessarily the case if the growth is inequitable.
International tax avoidance
Global companies have been legally outwitting national tax agencies for years. In Brisbane leaders will be asked to agree to these measures:
· A "common reporting standard" - a requirement that banks identify and report on the tax affairs of non-residents to their home country. Countries will also be asked to say when they will start the new rule, aimed at flushing out individuals and companies hiding their wealth in offshore tax havens. This has already been negotiated through the OECD and many countries formally signed an agreement to automatically exchange information in Berlin last month.
· A pledge to force multinationals to report their accounts country by country to avoid tax avoidance through complicated deals and profit shifting. But the multinationals' country by country reports will only be available to tax authorities, not to the public. And some countries, including Australia, have delayed the scheme's implementation for a year. Spoors, the G20 coordinator for Oxfam, said the recent leaked tax documents showing how thousands of major companies were legally minimising tax through tax deals involving Luxembourg proved that public reporting of country by country profits would be a much more effective deterrent.
· A pledge to force companies and other legal entities to agree to principles about disclosing the beneficial ownership of companies. Transparency International claims China has been blocking agreement on this.
Free trade
The Doha round of global multilateral trade talks have been limping along for more than 10 years and broke down completely in August after India refused to back a deal finalised in Bali in 2013 unless it included concessions allowing developing countries freedom to subsidise and stockpile food. The G20's official website declares it will "seek a G20 commitment to timely implementation of the WTO trade facilitation agreement concluded in Bali, Indonesia, in December 2013" but negotiators concede its efforts are unlikely to make much of a difference.
Energy efficiency and climate change
As reported by the Guardian, Australia has reluctantly conceded the final G20 communique could include climate change as a single paragraph, acknowledging that it should be addressed by UN processes. Australia's original position was that the meeting should focus solely on "economic issues".
But the surprise announcement by President Obama and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping of post-2020 greenhouse emission reduction targets on Wednesday has ensured climate change will be a major issue at the G20, despite the host nation's reluctance.
The text that has so far made it through the G20's closed-door, consensus-driven process reads: "We support strong and effective action to address climate change, consistent with sustainable economic growth and certainty for business and investment. We reaffirm our resolve to adopt a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the United Nations framework convention on climate change that is applicable to all parties at the 21st conference of the parties in Paris in 2015."
Australia has also been resisting a last-ditch push by the US, France and other European countries leaders to endorse contributions to the Green Climate Fund - as they did last year in St Petersburg. The fund aims to help poorer countries cut their emissions and prepare for the impact of climate change, and is seen as critical to securing developing-nation support for a successful deal on reducing emissions at the United Nations meeting in Paris next year.
Infrastructure funding
A key Australian "announceable" in Brisbane will be the establishment of a global infrastructure hub, to be based in Sydney. It would match investors with infrastructure projects and help establish uniform rules for risk assessments and other practices. But Australia has been unable to convince other countries to make major financial contributions, and many were concerned it would duplicate work already being done by the World Bank and resisted the idea of the G20 spawning a new permanent institution.
Undeterred, Australia appears to have won support for a temporary, four-year "hub", financed primarily by the Australian government and Australian businesses.
Everything else
As well as the formal agenda items, G20 meetings also give leaders a chance to discuss pressing issues of the day, which in Brisbane are certain to be the global response to Ebola, the conflict in the Ukraine, the international action against Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq and Syria, and Russia's response to the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight Mhl.
With the IMF revising down its global growth forecasts, the World Trade Organisation revising down estimated growth in global trade volumes and multilateral trade talks stalled, the G20's "core business" is vital, but it remains unclear whether the meeting's deliberations will make any difference.
LOAD-DATE: November 13, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
345 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 13, 2014 Thursday 10:14 AM GMT
US-China deal makes international carbon emissions pact 'very likely', says David King;
Landmark deal between world's two biggest emitters makes an international agreement on climate change next year much more likely, says Foreign Office climate adviser
BYLINE: Damian Carrington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 818 words
An international deal to limit carbon emissions has been made much more likely by a climate agreement signed on Wednesday between China and the US, says Sir David King.
The UK foreign secretary's special representative for climate change said that the landmark deal between the world's two biggest emitters was "very welcome" in helping UN climate negotiations ahead of a key summit in Paris next year.
"It means we are very likely to get an agreement in Paris in December 2015," the deadline set by the world's nations, he said.
King said that climate change was civilisation's biggest diplomatic challenge of all time. "Climate change is a global commons problem," he told the Guardian in an interview. "It requires all major nations to take action and I can think of no other situation that has put the world in that position."
"In terms of challenges to civilisation, climate change is the biggest diplomatic challenge of all time," said King. The statement is even stronger than the controversial one he made as chief scientific advisor to the UK government in 2004, when he warned that global warming was a greater threat than international terrorism.
He said the UK's tough action to slash emissions at home and the billions it spends on overseas climate aid were "critically important" to creating the trust between nations required to seal a global deal. He also said the ongoing switch to renewable energy could hugely boost the economy of the UK and Europe by retaining the (EURO)500bn (£395) that drains out of the bloc every year on imported fossil fuels.
"There is no country doing as much as Britain on climate diplomacy," he said. The key to that is the UK's ambitious domestic action and large climate aid budgets, he said. Both have been attacked as pointless by some because UK emissions are tiny in a global context and some aid-receiving nations are developing fast.
"Gaining respect and trust is a big part of overcoming barriers in the climate negotiations," King said. "Saying we are reducing our emissions by 80% by 2050 allows us in negotiations to say - and there's no doubt I have used this - 'Mr President, we are doing this. What are you doing?'. This has created some tremendous outcomes."
The UK will spend £3.9bn on climate change action overseas by 2016, via its International Climate Fund. "If our overseas aid was a fraction of what it is now, our position of trust around the world would be massively reduced," King said.
Bilateral talks behind the scenes, particularly like Wednesday's milestone deal between the US and China, are critical to building a global deal, King said. "It is not so easy in the multilateral [UN] meetings, which turn into a bit of a circus."
King said one critical difference between the situation today and the doomed climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009 is the ability of the US to act.
Then, an international treaty was on the table and would have needed ratification by the US congress, a political impossibility given Republican opposition. But the deal now being discussed is comprised of "nationally determined contributions". As this is a national - not international - pledge, King says president Barack Obama can sign the global deal without Congress approval.
King says China has moved a long way from the reluctant position it took in 2009. "The Chinese are very keen to see international movement on this issue. It is of course driven, at least in part, by pollution." He pointed out that, on top of Wednesday's pledge to start reducing its total carbon emissions by 2030, a quarter of China's economy will be subject to a new cap-and-trade carbon market, with the entire economy expected to be covered by 2016.
King said the plummeting cost of renewable energy was the key to cutting emissions and that the EU had done the world a service because its subsidies had created the renewables market that drove the fall in costs.
"We will crack this if intermittent renewable energy plus storage is cheaper than fossil fuel power," he said. "For sunny parts of the world, it's going to be there by 2020 and for the rest of the world by 2025."
"One of the big advantages of going down this route is making use of indigenous energy sources," King said, not just because this avoids energy security problems as seen with Russian gas supplies but also because it keeps huge amounts of money within nations.
"If the UK moves, as is the plan, our ground transport sector on to the electricity grid by 2050 we will not need to import any oil," he said. "The saving to the UK will be immense." King said the same applied to the (EURO)500bn the EU spends on imported fossil fuels each year. "I believe that one of the reasons the EU economic recovery is stalling is the big drain in euros for the purchase of oil."
· Sir David King spoke at " The road to Paris " event on Wednesday jointly organised by the French Embassy in London and Imperial College London.
LOAD-DATE: November 13, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
346 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 13, 2014 Thursday 10:12 AM GMT
Carbon capture and storage research budget slashed despite PM's coal focus;
Tony Abbott has trumpeted coal as the foundation of Australia's energy needs but CCS programs have lost $460m in funding
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 610 words
The government has cut almost half a billion dollars from research into carbon capture and storage - which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deems crucial for continued use of coal - despite the prime minister insisting coal is the "foundation of our prosperity".
Tony Abbott said on Tuesday: "For now and for the foreseeable future, the foundation of Australia's energy needs will be coal. The foundation of the world's energy needs will be coal."
The IPCC synthesis report, released on Monday, found that to limit global warming to 2C "the share of low-carbon electricity supply (comprising renewable energy, nuclear and carbon capture and storage) needs to increase from its current share of approximately 30% to more than 80% by 2050 and 90% by 2100, and fossil fuel power generation without CCS [carbon capture and storage] is phased out almost entirely by 2100".
In the budget the government cut $459.3m over three years from its carbon capture and storage flagship program, leaving $191.7m to continue existing projects for the next seven years. The program had already been cut by the previous Labor government and much of the funding remained unallocated.
The coal industry has "paused" a levy on black coal producers, which was supposed to build a $1bn industry fund to also finance research and demonstration into clean coal technology. It cited low coal prices for the halt. $250m has been spent from the fund on demonstration plants and another $46m worth of grants are under assessment.
The objectives of Coal21, set up in 2006, have also been changed to allow the industry to use funding already collected to promote the use of coal. Its constitution now allows money to be spent on "promoting the use of coal both within Australia and overseas and promoting the economic and social benefits of the coal industry". It is unclear whether any has been spent in this way.
Tony Wood, the energy program director at the Grattan Institute, said: "CCS is the only way Australia, and the world, can keep using coal and also do what it needs to do about climate change, but neither industry nor government seem to be serious about doing anything about it."
Peter Cook, the former head of the CO2 co-operative research centre, and now the head of the Peter Cook centre for CCS research at the University of Melbourne, said Australia was not doing as much as we could or we should. "The research effort is fractured, the government has cut funding ... the coal industry announced their Coal21 fund with great flourish but now they seem to have gone very quiet," he said.
"Australia has lost momentum, lost impetus ... even though we have a greater interest than most countries in this technology working."
The Greens, and many in the conservation movement, have argued that carbon capture and storage does not work and is never going to be viable, and that renewable energy has "won the race".
But John Connor, the chief executive of the Climate Institute, said CCS "has to be one of the clean energy options available because all the modelling says that to avoid temperature rises of more than two degrees, we have to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere".
He was also critical of the efforts of Australian governments and industry. "Apart from a brief flutter of responsibility in the 2000s the industry has gone for the fast bucks and the fancy words rather than actually doing anything," he said.
The G8 summit in Japan in 2008 pledged to build "20 large-scale CCS demonstration projects". The first full-scale CCS power plant, the Boundary Dam Carbon Capture and Storage Project in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, opened last month.
LOAD-DATE: November 13, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
347 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 13, 2014 Thursday 8:09 AM GMT
Bill Shorten accuses Tony Abbott of 'stubborn isolationism' on climate change;
'I fear it will not be long before this stubborn isolationism takes a toll on our international competitiveness,' Labor leader says
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 730 words
Bill Shorten has accused Tony Abbott of "stubborn isolationism" on climate change that could hurt Australia's international trade in the long term.
Responding to the significant post-2020 greenhouse gas reduction commitments by the US and China, the prime minister said he was "not focusing on what is happening in 16 years' time" but rather on what his Direct Action scheme might achieve straight away. Australia will have to unveil a similar post-2020 commitment next year.
Citing Abbott's reaction, the Labor leader said: "I fear it will not be long before this stubborn isolationism takes a toll on our international competitiveness."
In a speech to the Sydney Institute, he said it was impossible for Australia to "expect the rest of the world to do the heavy lifting on greenhouse gas pollution, while ignoring our inaction".
"Sooner rather than later, Australia's refusal to act on climate change will affect our trade negotiations. I would not be surprised if future international trade agreements included a carbon-price equivalent as a mandatory condition."
And he attacked Abbott's insistence that the G20 is not an appropriate forum to discuss climate because it should focus on economic issues.
Asked about Australia's reluctance to discuss climate at the Brisbane meeting, despite the urging of many other G20 countries, Abbott said; "There are lots of venues to deal with climate change ... there's a conference coming up in Lima which will be a climate change conference. There's a conference coming up in Paris next year which will be a climate change conference. The UN is a forum which is regularly dealing with climate change - that's as it should be.
"But this is a major economic conference; it is the world's premier economic conference. And I certainly expect that the focus will be on economic reform, economic growth, how we drive growth and jobs."
But Shorten pointed out that the US and Chinese presidents had used Apec - also an economic forum - to make their climate policy announcement.
And he accused the Coalition of "abandoning internationalism" when it suited its political agenda.
"It is not good enough to say yes to Iraq, but no to action on Ebola," he said. "It is not good enough to say yes to free trade agreements, but no to global action on climate change. It is not good enough to attack the unemployed, yet ignore tax havens."
Australia has been resisting a last-ditch push by the US, France and other European countries for G20 leaders at next week's meeting in Brisbane to include climate change on the leader's agenda for discussion, and to back contributions to the Green Climate Fund.
The prime minister has previously rejected the fund as a "Bob Brown bank on an international scale" - referring to the former leader of the Australian Greens.
The fund aims to help poorer countries cut their emissions and prepare for the impact of climate change, and - along with national greenhouse reduction pledges - is seen as critical to securing developing-nation support for a successful deal on reducing emissions at the UN meeting in Paris next year.
As reported by Guardian Australia, Australia has reluctantly conceded the final G20 communique should include climate change as a single paragraph, acknowledging that it should be addressed by UN processes. Australia's original position was that the meeting should focus solely on "economic issues".
An early text read "We support strong and effective action to address climate change, consistent with sustainable economic growth and certainty for business and investment. We reaffirm our resolve to adopt a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the United Nations framework convention on climate change that is applicable to all parties at the 21st conference of the parties in Paris in 2015."
This has been further negotiated by officials in the leadup to the weekend meeting.
Australia had previously insisted the G20 should discuss climate-related issues only as part of its deliberations on energy efficiency, but the energy efficiency action plan to be agreed at the meeting, revealed by Guardian Australia, does not require G20 leaders to commit to any actual action.
Instead it asks them to "consider" making promises next year to reduce the energy used by smartphones and computers and to develop tougher standards for car emissions.
LOAD-DATE: November 13, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
348 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 13, 2014 Thursday 7:33 AM GMT
Victorian government has 'worst environmental record since the 60s';
State's leading environment groups are joining forces to fight what they call 'wholesale attack on state's environmental assets'
BYLINE: Gay Alcorn
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 672 words
The Victorian Coalition government has the worst record on the environment since the 1960s, according to the state's four leading environment groups, which will join forces in an unprecedented way to fight what they say is a "wholesale attack on the state's environmental assets".
Environment Victoria, the Wilderness Society, Friends of the Earth and the Victorian National Parks Association are combining resources to target marginal seats before the 29 November election.
In a statement to be released on Friday, the groups, all founded in the late 1960s or early 1970s, say they have never witnessed such "callous indifference" to the environment. They say the government has made damaging decisions including:
scrapping emissions reduction target
abandoning solar target and making it almost impossible to get approvals for new wind farms
promoting coal mining, gas extraction and coal export industry
extending life of ageing and polluting Anglesea and Hazelwood coal mines and power stations
allowing loggers to operate in threatened species habitats
attempting to abolish energy efficiency targets
slashing jobs at Parks Victoria
"We cannot accept such an attack on our natural assets. We cannot afford such callous indifference, nor can we simply stand by and let it happen again," the statement says.
Matt Ruchel, the executive director of the Victorian National Parks Association, told Guardian Australia: "I've not come across a government so openly hostile to conservation. I suspect they consider it some sort of war."
Mark Wakeham, the CEO of the state's peak group, Environment Victoria, said he was surprised by how aggressively anti-environment the government proved to be after it won the 2010 election, without releasing an environment policy during the campaign.
Conservation groups are generally on the left of politics, but Wakeham said that prior to this government, all sides of politics wanted a "good story" to tell on the environment.
"This government is totally out of step with where public opinion is at. Not only have they been poor on the environment; they have actively attacked environmental protections. They're not 'do nothing'.
"The performance has been terrible and there's a united sense of purpose [among environment groups] that we need to rebuild bipartisan support for good environment policy and action on climate change."
Environment Victoria opened a shopfront in the seat of Frankston in June to campaign in four marginal electorates, will spent $100,000 on advertising, and has encouraged 4,000 people in key areas to "pledge" to vote for the environment.
The groups cite opinion polls indicating that 76% of Victorians believe the state government has a responsibility to reduce greenhouse pollution, and not leave it to Canberra, and that only 32% of Liberal voters think the Coalition's restrictions on wind farms are fair.
Lisa Neville, shadow environment and climate change minister, told Guardian Australia that both Liberal and Labor governments "have always taken a step forward since the Bolte government [in the 1950s and 1960s]. But when it comes to the environment this is the first government that has gone backwards. They are the worst government in relation to the environment for decades."
But Wakeham said Labor had been noticeably quiet on its environmental commitments, at least until Thursday when it announced a partial winding back of wind farm restrictions.
"They haven't released any environment policy for the protection of natural areas, and we don't know what their approach on climate change will be."
Asked before the groups' statement was released about the government's record on the environment, minister Ryan Smith declined to be interviewed. He said in an email that the government was "committed to taking practical action to protect and enhance our environment, which delivered tangible results and best value for money." It had invested $50m to help adaptation to climate change, released a climate change adaptation plan, and was a strong supporter of renewable energy.
LOAD-DATE: November 13, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
349 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 13, 2014 Thursday 7:00 AM GMT
Religious festivals: how sustainable is Kumbh Mela, Hajj and Christmas?;
From Christmas to the Hajj pilgrimage, religious festivals can involve some of the most unsustainable activities but steps are being taken to reduce their impacts
BYLINE: Oliver Balch
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 1020 words
Religious festivals play an intrinsic part in people's lives the world over, but their environmental impacts can be far from ethereal. We look at what actions are being taken to green some of the biggest events in the world's religious calendar.
Hajj: tread kindly
Nearly three million Muslims head to Mecca in Saudi Arabia every year to complete the Hajj pilgrimage. However, the event's spiritual benefits come at an environmental cost, with litter and transport-related emissions high on the list of impacts. Muslim pilgrims can now obtain advice on how to reduce their environmental footprint in the Green Guide for Hajj. The guide is available in English, Arabic, Hausa, Bengali, and Bahasa Indonesian.
Published by the UK-based Alliance of Religions and Conservation, the booklet encourages pilgrims to take jute or cloth bags and prayer mats to Hajj and to use reusable drinking bottles instead of plastic equivalents. They are also advised to select travel agents based on their sustainability credentials and to purchase only eco-friendly products in preparation. When visiting the holy sites of Mina, Muzdalifah and Arafat, pilgrims should ideally ditch their cars and travel by the Mecca metro rail service instead. Mecca is one of 30 or so pilgrimage destinations participating in the Green Pilgrimage Network. The network recently established an alliance with the R20 Regions of Climate Change initiative, led by Arnold Schwarzenegger. The two groups hope that the region might feature in its list of model green pilgrim cities, to be published at next year's UN climate change summit.
Kumbh Mela: river clean-up
From July to September 2015, an estimated ten million or so Hindus are expected to descend on Nashik, a city in the Indian state of Maharashtra. Their purpose will be to bathe in the sacred Godavari River as part of the festival of Kumbh Mela. Local environmental groups are already raising concerns about pollution levels in the river, however. Following a public interest case brought by a local NGO, a Bombay court has ordered the city's municipal authorities to undertake a clean-up operation. Efforts to green the Kumbh Mela form a key part of the city's proposed plan. Among the ambitious goals recently unveiled by the city government is the elimination of plastic-based products during the festival. Pledges have also been made to deploy extra police on the Godavari's banks in order to prevent people from throwing ritual offerings and material waste into the river. Nets will be fixed to pedestrian bridges with a similar pollution-prevention aim in mind.
In addition, the municipal authority says it will take steps to stop people washing clothes, animals and cars in the river. As part of the 'Green Kumbh', a major public awareness campaign about water pollution will run before and during the event too. Initial outreach in schools and colleges is already under way.
Christmas: recycling
The tinsel is up in shop windows. That means three things are in the offing: Christmas Day, piles of presents and, come Boxing Day, mountains of rubbish.
But do Christmas festivities lead to an overloading the UK's landfill sites? Not if we get recycling, green groups say. E-cards are a simple alternative to paper cards, and recycled cards such as those sold by Nigel's Eco Store, are also better for the environment. Also, consumers can take their cards down to a local Marks & Spencer store to be recycled. Through a partnership with the Woodland Trust, the UK retailer promises to plant a tree for every 1,000 cards handed in during January.
Recycling schemes exist for other Christmas-specific paraphernalia too. Many local councils, for example, arrange specific collection services for real Christmas trees. The trees are usually shredded into chippings, which are then used locally in parks or woodland areas. The anti-waste campaign group Love Food Hate Waste, provides numerous recipe ideas for any uneaten turkey and other yuletide leftovers. Composting wreaths and paper chains is another recommendation from the government-backed initiative, Recycle Now. As for the tinsel? It's not recyclable, so bin it or - better still - try to live without it.
Shmita: give consumerism a rest
Most religions have something of the counter-cultural about them, so reclaiming religious festivals from the clutches of mass consumerism is perhaps apt. It's an approach much on the mind of some Jewish organisations in this Shmita (sabbatical) year, which began on 25 September.
In response, Jewish Social Action Forum is launching the ' Give It A Rest ' campaign. As part of the initiative, the group is calling on the Jewish community to give to food banks during Mitzvah Day on 16 November. The move builds on previous efforts to use events in the Jewish religious calendar to raise awareness around sustainability issues. In 2014, the Canary Wharf Group held a tree-planting ceremony to mark Tu B'Shvat, while in the previous two years the non-profit Big Green Jewish Organisation ran the Year of the Bagel (2012) and the Year of the Bike (2013) to highlight issues relating to sustainable food and green transport.
This year it is encouraging the Jewish community to ditch fast fashion in favour of sustainable clothing alternatives as part of its Shmita Fashion Campaign.
Read more stories like this:
Eco laundry habits are about more than sustainable washing machines
Why rivals like PepsiCo, Coca Cola, Unilever and P&G are joining forces
Advertisement feature: Unilever seeks innovative startups for sustainable living hack
The sustainable living hub is funded by Unilever. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled advertisement feature. Find out more here .
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: November 13, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
350 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 13, 2014 Thursday 6:00 AM GMT
The Guardian view on the US-China climate change deal: two cheers;
It doesn't go far enough, but it unblocks the road to a deal in Paris next year
BYLINE: Editorial
SECTION: COMMENT IS FREE
LENGTH: 357 words
The unexpected climate change agreement reached between Barack Obama and Xi Jinping in Beijing transforms the prospects for global agreement at the climate summit in Paris next year. Is it enough to save the world from the consequences of global warming of 4 degrees or more? Probably not. But to have the two biggest polluters in the world reach any agreement is, as the US secretary of state John Kerry pointed out, a good place to start.
Until now, China's leaders, reluctant to constrict economic growth, have refused to set any target for peak carbon emissions. But growth is now slowing, and although the peak year for pollution has been set at 2030, the agreement holds out the promise that it may be reached earlier. Just as important is that the target now has the imprimatur of President Xi Jinping, who saw an opportunity to showcase some cooperation with the US after years of heightened tensions over Chinese regional expansionism. The Chinese leadership is also aware that it has to respond to increasing protests over the appalling air quality - they call it airpocalypse - that now causes illness and hundreds of premature deaths in many Chinese cities.
President Obama's commitment to fighting climate change has not been in doubt. It is his ability to deliver that is less certain. Republican victories in last week's mid-term elections leave him isolated but not necessarily powerless to introduce his pledge to cut US emissions to between 26 and 28% below the 2005 level, by 2025. It has already been rejected by the Senate republican leader Mitch McConnell. Anything agreed at the Paris climate change conference next year - which might not include a treaty, but a series of globally agreed national objectives - could be undone by Obama's successor.
But good signals, however symbolic, are too rare to discard. European countries last month agreed to cutting emissions by 40% below the 1990 level, by 2030. For nearly a quarter of a century, China and the US have been the two road blocks to global agreement. There is a long, long way to go. Neither commitment is yet ambitious enough. But at least they have made a start.
LOAD-DATE: November 13, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
351 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 13, 2014 Thursday 6:00 AM GMT
Doomsday pessimism won't help us to tackle the climate-change threat
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 460 words
I congratulate Paul Kingsnorth on the literary award for his innovative novel The Wake ( A novel approach to the use of Old English, 10 November), but seriously question his environmental activism. Kingsnorth's Dark Mountain project, described as "a network of artists, writers and thinkers who basically see the world as being doomed - ecologically and economically", is hardly the message we need to hear in the week following the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change setting out the challenging, but achievable, targets for control of carbon release and temperature rise; in fact, for our Earth's survival.
This despairing doomsday scenario emerges clearly in Kingsnorth's recent review of two books ( The four degrees, London Review of Books, 23 October ). The first, George Marshall's Don't Even Think About It, is heavily influenced by US psychologists, Dan Kahan and Daniel Kahneman, who clearly share the pessimistic doomsday scenario. The second, Naomi Klein's deeply researched This Changes Everything: Capitalism v The Climate, is peremptorily dismissed by Kingsnorth as "an American liberal wishlist". The climate-change threat is the ultimate challenge to human creativity and capacity for change. This is no time for our creative elites to be opting for despairing nihilism. Realism with optimism is the Arts Social Action way. Ralph WindleArts Social Action, Witney, Oxfordshire
· The G20 countries' handout of $88bn a year in fossil-fuel subsidies is appalling ( Report, 11 November ). The new report's recognition that investments through RBS and UK Export Finance are UK subsidies is particularly important. But we need to go even further. The support of the government for frontier oil drilling also includes diplomatic and military intervention on behalf of oil companies. The Foreign Office maintained a consulate in Basra whose job largely consisted of supporting UK oil companies, with three diplomats on staff and a £6.5m budget. High-profile UK political figures appear on request of oil companies for deal signing, such as Chris Huhne attending the signing ceremony during BPs first attempt to broker a deal with Russia's Rosneft.
If these forms of support don't add hugely to the figures governments spend on supporting fossil fuels, they certainly add billions to oil companies' balance sheets through enabling major deals. Moreover, according to our calculations, if the UK's tax regime was modelled on Norway's, the country's budget would have received an extra £74bn due to windfall profits on oil in the years 2002-08. We need not just to stop handing out tax breaks to oil companies, but to change the taxation regime in the first place, instead of catering to oil companies' every whim. Anna GalkinaPlatform
LOAD-DATE: November 13, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
352 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 13, 2014 Thursday 6:00 AM GMT
More than a third of natural world heritage sites face 'significant threats';
Report says invasive species, tourism, poaching, dams and logging most pressing threats but climate change may eclipse all
BYLINE: Oliver Milman
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 772 words
More than a third of the planet's natural world heritage sites face significant threats such as invasive species, logging and poaching, and climate change is a looming menace to prized ecosystems, according to a major new assessment.
The first ever analysis of all 228 natural world heritage sites found that 21% have a good conservation outlook, with 42% deemed to be "good with some concerns".
However, 29% have "significant concerns" and a further 8% are listed as "critical", which means they are deemed to be "severely threatened" and require urgent attention to avoid their natural value being lost.
The IUCN World Heritage Outlook, released at the World Parks Congress in Sydney, found that 54% of world heritage sites are well managed, but 13% are seriously deficient in protecting species and landscapes.
The report cites invasive species, the impact of tourism, poaching, dams and logging as the most pressing threats, although climate change may soon eclipse all of these factors.
"In terms of current threats, the most pressing is invasive species but climate change is the most serious potential threat," said Elena Osipova, world heritage monitoring officer at the IUCN. "We've already seen the impact of climate change and the problem is that climate change can increase the impact from other threats."
Most of the 19 critically threatened world heritage sites are in Africa, including the Virunga national park, which contains around half of the world's remaining mountain gorillas. The Everglades national park in Florida is also on the critical list, mainly due to the area's declining water quality, introduced pest species and vulnerability to climate change.
Three key Australian sites are listed as being a significant concern - the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu and Queensland's wet tropics. The declining state of the Great Barrier Reef has become a contentious political issue in Australia, with the government agreeing to a Unesco plea to stop dumping sediment in the ecosystem's waters.
Machu Picchu in Peru, Tanzania's Serengeti and the Sundarbans national park in India, home to an endangered population of tigers, are also considered to be of significant concern.
The best-ranked world heritage sites, with few threats, include Australia's Lord Howe island, Mount Etna in Italy and the Dorset and east Devon coast in the UK.
Cyril Kormos, vice chair of the IUCN world commission on protected areas, said the assessment wasn't intended to be political but should help countries manage world heritage sites better.
"This is something we all need to ensure the success of," he said. "If we fail to protect the most valuable, iconic protected areas on the planet, we fail as a conservation community. "
A separate report unveiled at the World Parks Congress, a once-a-decade conservation event organised by the IUCN, found that the world is broadly on track to meet targets on the expansion of protected areas.
The United Nations Environment Program's Protected Planet report found that 15.4% of the planet's land and inland water areas and 3.4% of oceans are now formally protected. A total of 6.1m square kilometres has been placed under protection since 2010 - an area almost the size of Australia.
Targets agreed by more than 190 countries state that at least 17% of the world's terrestrial areas and 10% of its oceans must be protected by 2020.
The report states that while this target is likely to be met, other problems present themselves. Specifically, many protected areas are poorly managed, aren't located in areas of important biodiversity and aren't well connected, which means animals and plants can't spread and flourish.
Conservation officials at the congress also pointed out that the 17% target was essentially a political one, with scientists advocating up to 50% of the world's surface to be protected in order to save threatened species and safeguard critical habitat that provides water.
Achim Steiner, executive director of UNEP, said there needed to be a greater appreciation of the economic benefits of protected areas, citing a Finnish study that found that for every euro invested in nature, the community benefited by 10 euros.
"We look at these things as a cost to the taxpayer, without looking at the multiplier in the economy," he said. "The dividing line between private and public funding is very anachronistic. Most of the forests in Europe are under private ownership, for example.
"The private sector is not just multinational mining enterprises; some can be important co-investors. They are an under-utilised and under-appreciated contributor to how to finance protected areas in the future."
LOAD-DATE: November 13, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
353 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 13, 2014 Thursday 12:59 AM GMT
Republicans vow to use expanded powers to thwart US-China climate deal;
Obama's opponents looking for ways to undermine bold climate change strategy that could bring about drastic reduction in carbon emissions
BYLINE: Paul Lewis and Suzanne Goldenberg Washington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1394 words
Republicans promised on Wednesday to use their expanded power in Congress to undermine Barack Obama's historic deal over carbon emissions with China on Wednesday, claiming Beijing could not be trusted to see through its side of an agreement that would ultimately damage the US economy.
The hard-hitting response from top Republicans to the historic deal between the US and China - the world's two largest emitters - foreshadowed an expected collision with the White House over climate change that looks set to define Obama's last two years in office and could shape the 2016 presidential elections.
Emboldened by their victory in last week's midterm elections, which gave Republicans control over the Senate as well as the House of Representatives, the president's opponents are searching for ways to hobble a bold climate change strategy that Obama's aides believe could be the legacy of his second term in office.
That fight will encompass top-line carbon emissions targets set by White House, rules implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that will reduce pollution from power stations and a looming and totemic decision over the Keystone XL pipeline.
The pipeline is a politically contentious project that the Obama administration has repeatedly delayed. The Keystone pipeline, which would transport crude oil from Canada to refineries on the US Gulf Coast, has become a hugely symbolic proxy for the battle between environmentalists and the corporate energy sector.
In a sign of the strength of opposition faced by Obama even within the ranks of his own party, the Democratic senator, Mary Landrieu - who is in the midst of a re-election campaign in Louisiana that has gone to a runoff - took to the Senate floor on Wednesday call for an immediate vote to approve Keystone XL.
"You don't become a super energy power by just wishing it," Landrieu said, calling on Senate Republicans to help her pass legislation to endorse the pipeline.
She was supported on the floor by other pro-energy Democrats: Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Jon Tester of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. It was later confirmed that both the House and Senate would hold votes on the pipeline.
Other Democrats applauded the US-China deal as an ambitious step that, if implemented, could help to bring about the drastic reduction in carbon emissions required to prevent catastrophic environmental consequences.
Republican Mitch McConnell, who is certain to take over as majority leader of the Senate in January, fresh from a decisive electoral triumph in the coal-rich state of Kentucky, said he would make it a priority in the next Congress to ease the burden placed on the energy sector by EPA limits on carbon emissions.
McConnell, whose campaign for re-election focused on what he said was Obama's "war on coal", is considering withholding funding from the EPA to prevent it from enforcing rules set by the administration. He did not specifically address any such measures on Wednesday but said that "easing the burden already created by EPA regulations" would be a priority for the Republican-controlled Congress.
Those EPA rules, unveiled by the Obama administration in June last year, will require carbon pollution from power plants to be cut by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030. The limits led the groundwork for Wednesday's deal in which China agreed to cap emissions for the first time and the US committed to deep reductions by 2025.
The deal was welcomed by climate change campaigners across the world as an important step ahead of efforts to reach a global deal on reducing emissions beyond 2020 at a United Nations meeting in Paris next year.
The deal challenges Republicans in Washington because it undercuts one of their principal arguments against restriction on greenhouse gas emissions: that unilateral action by the US handicaps economic competition China, which is the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases and refuses to play by the same rules.
Building on the momentum from the China deal, Obama hopes to reach a global deal on reducing emissions beyond 2020 at a United Nations meeting in Paris next year that his Republican opponents will almost certainly oppose.
McConnell has already signalled he will use Republican control of the Senate to put pressure on Obama to approve Keystone, but after Landrieu's brinkmanship on the Senate floor on Wednesday, Democratic leaders in the Senate agreed to schedule a vote.
The move would deprive McConnell from claiming responsibility for the much-anticipated vote on the pipeline and, more significantly for Democrats, would be a boost to Landrieu, facing an uphill battle to hold on to her seat in a December runoff election.
A Keystone vote would be an acknowledgement that Republicans will almost certainly pass a vote to approve the pipeline in January, and throw a raft to Landrieu, who has used her position as chair of the energy committee to lobby for the pipeline to be approved.
Beyond Keystone, Obama's plans to act on climate change are particularly objectionable to Republicans because it relies solely upon the powers invested in the executive. After becoming president, Obama sought to deal with climate change through Congress, but Republican opposition made that highly unlikely. Ever since he has focused on the considerable range of actions his administration can take independently of Congress. A flurry of other EPA announcements are expected in the weeks and months ahead.
Yet without a two-thirds majority of both chambers of Congress, Republicans are unable to force Obama's hand on Keystone or override the EPA rules that they argue would be particularly harmful in states like Kentucky.
The fight against the deal is likely to be led in the Senate by Jim Inhofe, the Oklahoma senator who is in line to become chairman of the Senate environment and public works in January. Inhofe, a longstanding climate change denier who recently said global warming was a hoax, described the US-China deal as "non-binding charade". He added: "As we enter a new Congress, I will do everything in my power to rein in and shed light on the EPA's unchecked regulations."
Under the secretly negotiated deal unveiled by Obama and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in Beijing, China, which previously had only ever pledged to reduce the rapid rate of growth in its emission, will cap its output by 2030. Additionally, it has also promised to increase its use of energy from zero-emission sources to 20% by 2030.
John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the House, said the deal was "job crushing" and added: "It is the latest example of the president's crusade against affordable, reliable energy."
The deal also involves the US going further than it had previously pledged. It doubles the pace of US carbon pollution reduction - from 1.2% per year from 2005 to 2020, to 2.3% to 2.8% from 2020 to 2025.
Inhofe said the deal held the US to a different standard. "It's hollow and not believable for China to claim it will shift 20% of its energy to non-fossil fuels by 2030, and a promise to peak its carbon emissions only allows the world's largest economy to buy time," he said.
Appearing on the Senate floor later, Inhofe added: "Even if they agreed to reducing emissions, we wouldn't believe them."
Dismissing the global push to cut emissions, he said "people are trying to resurrect" the notion that there's "actually some truth to the global warming thing".
Obama's top advisers said the deal was significant. "To put it plainly, this is a big deal," said John Podesta, counselor to the president, who oversees climate change and energy policy.
"This target keeps us on track to reduce our carbon pollution on the order of 80% by 2050, and means the US is doing our part to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius."
Podesta is widely tipped to play a key role in Hillary Clinton's expected bid for the White House in 2016. A future Democratic president is unlikely to object to the targets inherited from the Obama administration, but a Republican president would not feel so tightly bound to them.
With the exception of New Jersey governor Chris Christie, whose apparent position on climate change has veered over time, the views of potential Republican candidates range from scepticism about the scientific evidence of man-made climate change to outright denial of its existence.
LOAD-DATE: November 13, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
354 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 13, 2014 Thursday 12:31 AM GMT
The US-China deal on climate change is this century's most significant agreement. It puts G20 goals to shame;
The real action has already taken place. The G20 policy agenda is a grab bag of second-order measures
BYLINE: John Quiggin
SECTION: COMMENT IS FREE
LENGTH: 834 words
The announcement by Barack Obama and Xi Jinping of an agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions is a fine illustration of the difference between the real and ostensible functions of international summit meetings like the G20.
Ostensibly, the G20 leaders were supposed to agree on a plan to increase the rate of growth of GDP by two percentage points for the next five years. As an aspirational statement of what might happen given a perfect alignment of the economic stars, such an estimate would be highly optimistic. It would imply, for example, a doubling of the rate of growth in income per person for developed countries like Australia.
As a policy goal, to be achieved by specific measures agreed at the G20 meeting, the target is about as realistic as establishing world peace or ending poverty. The G20 policy agenda is a grab bag of second-order measures (the most substantive is spending 0.5% of GDP on infrastructure) that might marginally increase the long-term rate of economic growth but will have no perceptible impact over the next five years.
That's assuming if the G20 leaders can manage to push them through. All of the measures have been on the wishlists of various policy players for years, so the fact that they aren't already in place suggests that they face big political or institutional obstacles in the countries concerned.
By contrast, the US-China agreement on climate change is the real deal and illustrates the real function of events like G20. By bringing the leaders of 20 or more major countries together in one place, G20 facilitates one-on-one or small group meetings between them, either to respond to immediate crises (Abbott and Putin) or to announce the finalisation of negotiations that have been going on behind closed doors for months (Obama and Jinping).
Substantively, the deal is the most important in the long and tortured history of international climate negotiations. This bilateral deal, along with the recent unilateral commitments of the European Union, encompasses more than half of the world's carbon dioxide emissions and the great majority of emissions from developed countries. It now seems highly likely that most countries meeting at Paris in 2015 will bring commitments to substantial mitigation of emissions.
Of the two commitments, China's promise to reach peak carbon emissions by 2030 at the latest is the most significant. With emissions in most developed countries already falling, offsetting rising emissions elsewhere, this means that global emissions will peak around the same time.
The US commitment to accelerate reductions in emissions, reaching a level 26 to 28% below 2005 levels in 2025 is important for a couple of reasons. First (although comparisons are problematic), it puts the US ahead of the EU, historically the leader in the transition to a decarbonised economy. Second, the fact that Obama could announce with reasonable confidence is an indication that the economic costs will be low, and that the necessary policies can, if necessary, be implemented without Congressional assent.
The commitments made so far leave the world with just enough time to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at 450 ppm. But there is every reason to think that, once these goals are achieved easily, more ambitious goals will be set.
The remaining question is that of the holdouts: significant emitters who have made no commitment, or no adequate commitment, to rein in their admissions. India is the most important, and has legitimate objections to any deal that would require it to hold emissions permanently below the levels of richer countries. But there are many mechanisms, from technology transfer to a global allocation of tradeable carbon credits, that would permit wealthier countries to bear most or all of the costs of decarbonization in India.
Japan, which is still dealing with the sudden closure of most of its nuclear power stations following the Fukushima disaster is another special case. If a substantial portion are restarted, and the recent expansion of renewables is continued, Japan should be back on track before long. If this can't be done, Japan could buy credits to finance emissions reductions elsewhere (from India, for example).
That leaves two rich countries whose governments have simply chosen to shirk the task rather than promote change in their economies: Canada and Australia. Canada has withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol, while Australia has offered only a 5% reduction in emissions relative to 2000 levels by 2020.
It is hard to believe that this position can be sustained in the face of the US-China agreement. The government remains officially committed to reductions of 15 to 25% if the world as a whole reaches an ambitious agreement, and it will be very difficult to argue that this goal has not been achieved, at least in broad terms.
The formal G20 meeting will go ahead as planned, with lengthy discussions and a forgettable final communique. But the real action has already taken place.
LOAD-DATE: November 13, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
355 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 13, 2014 Thursday
The New York Times on the Web
Deal on Carbon Emissions by Obama and Xi Jinping Raises Hopes for Upcoming Paris Climate Talks
BYLINE: By CORAL DAVENPORT
SECTION: Section ; Column 0; Washington; NEWS ANALYSIS; Pg.
LENGTH: 975 words
WASHINGTON -- The historic announcement by President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China that they will commit to targets for cuts in their nations' carbon emissions has fundamentally shifted the global politics of climate change. The agreement has given a fresh jolt of optimism to negotiations aimed at reaching a new international climate treaty next year in Paris, where the American and Chinese targets are expected to be the heart of the deal.
''For the world's biggest emitters to be coming together and announcing concrete numbers, serious numbers, sends a signal to the world,'' said David B. Sandalow, who was Mr. Obama's assistant secretary of energy for policy and international affairs until May 2013. Nearly two decades ago, the world's first climate change treaty, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, failed to stop the rise of planet-warming carbon pollution in large part because of a standoff between China and the United States, which never signed the deal.
But experts and negotiators cautioned that the emissions reductions targets now put forth by the two countries will not be enough to prevent an increase in global atmospheric temperature of 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 Fahrenheit. That is the point where scientists say the planet will tip into a future of dangerous and irreversible warming, which will include the loss of vast stretches of arable land, rapid melting of Arctic sea ice, rising sea levels, extreme droughts, storms and flooding.
Under the Kyoto plan, developed economies, including the United States, were to slash their fossil fuel emissions, while developing countries like China were exempt. The United States refused to ratify the treaty, while China went on to become the world's largest carbon polluter. In the following years, the superpowers remained at an impasse over climate change. Many other governments also refused to cut emissions, arguing that if the world's top two polluters were not acting, they shouldn't have to, either.
A series of scientific and economic reports have concluded that in order to avoid the 2-degree temperature rise, the world's largest economies will have to drastically cut carbon emissions within just a few years -- a rate far more rapid than what the United States and China have offered. At the same time, experts negotiating the Paris deal say that an essential component of the treaty will be a tax on industries for their carbon emissions -- an idea that remains a political nonstarter in the United States.
Many experts also criticized China's target of reaching a peak in its carbon emissions by 2030 as little more than business as usual.
Many other major emitters -- including Australia, India and Russia, as well as petrostates like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, whose economies depend on continued markets for fossil fuels -- do not appear likely to offer up similar targets anytime soon.
As a result, architects of the Paris agreement are adjusting their expectations. Laurence Tubiana, France's climate change ambassador to the United Nations and a central figure in efforts to forge the Paris deal, said that she does not expect the Paris deal to resemble a traditional top-down United Nations treaty. Instead, she anticipates that it will resemble a collection of targets pledged by individual countries, along with commitments from each government to follow through with domestic action.
Rather than a treaty, Ms. Tubiana said she envisions a deal called the ''Paris Alliance'' -- a name that she said conveys ''all the countries working together.'' She also said that she does not see the 2015 Paris deal as the final effort on climate change. Rather, she hopes that it will be the first in an ongoing series of summit meetings at which alliance members reconvene to pledge further reduction targets.
Negotiators are also acknowledging that in failing to stave off a 2-degree Celsius temperature rise, a 2015 deal must include provisions to help poor countries adapt to the consequences of climate change, such as droughts, floods and extreme weather. When Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state, she pledged that the United States would help mobilize the flow of $100 billion annually from rich countries to poor countries by 2020 for a United Nations Green Climate Fund.
Rich countries will meet next week in Berlin to formally announce their pledges, but so far they are far short of the $100 billion goal.
In the meantime it remains unclear how the agreement between the United States and China will influence other major emitters.
In India, the world's third-largest carbon polluter, the government of President Narendra Modi has signaled that it will not announce a target for specific emissions cuts. India has long maintained that it should not be required to commit to such cuts.
''I doubt the Indian government is going to change anything at this time,'' said Rajendra M. Abhyankar, a former Indian ambassador to the European Union and a professor of public diplomacy at Indiana University's School of Public and Environmental Affairs. ''The action by China might create a notional pressure, but I doubt it will be a great pressure.''
Still, Mr. Abhyankar pointed out that Mr. Modi is, like Mr. Xi, interested in pursuing economic growth fueled by low-carbon energy -- if that energy can be obtained cheaply. As the negotiations for the Paris deal play out, India is expected to pressure the United States to provide cheap or subsidized access to renewable energy technology.
China has long argued that it should not have to commit to cutting carbon pollution, since its energy consumption helped fuel the rise of its poor rural population to the middle class. But Mr. Xi has laid out a strategy of economic growth that is not directly tied to fossil fuel consumption, in hopes that his country could begin to decouple economic growth from carbon emissions.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/world/asia/deal-on-carbon-emissions-by-obama-and-xi-jinping-raises-hopes-for-upcoming-paris-climate-talks.html
LOAD-DATE: November 13, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News Analysis
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
356 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 13, 2014 Thursday
The New York Times on the Web
China's Climate Change Plan Raises Questions
BYLINE: By EDWARD WONG
SECTION: Section ; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg.
LENGTH: 1077 words
BEIJING -- When the presidents of China and the United States pledged on Wednesday to reduce or limit carbon dioxide emissions, analysts and policy advisers said, the two leaders sent an important signal: that the world's largest economies were willing to work together on climate change.
''This is a very serious international commitment between the two heavy hitters,'' said Li Shuo, who researches climate and coal policy for Greenpeace East Asia.
Still, many questions surround China's plans, which President Xi Jinping announced in Beijing alongside President Obama after months of negotiations. In essence, experts asked, do the pledges go far enough, and how will China achieve them?
Mr. Xi said China would brake the rapid rise in its carbon dioxide emissions, so that they peak ''around 2030'' and then remain steady or begin to decline. And by then, he promised, 20 percent of China's energy will be renewable. Analysts said that achieving those goals would require sustained efforts by Beijing to curb the country's addiction to coal and greatly increase its commitment to energy sources that do not depend on fossil fuels.
Many scientists have said that 2030 may be too long to wait for China's greenhouse gas emissions to stop growing, if the world is to keep the average global temperature from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above the preindustrial average. That goal was adopted by governments from around the world at talks in Copenhagen in 2009.
Almost no country has done enough yet to reach that goal, but because of its size and industrial development, China is crucial to any effort to even come close. (So is the United States, which promised on Wednesday to emit 26 percent to 28 percent less carbon dioxide in 2025 than it did in 2005.)
Some experts said that China should try to halt the growth of its emissions much sooner than it has pledged, by 2025 rather than 2030.
''Based on China's current coal consumption numbers, they can do much more,'' Mr. Li said on Wednesday. He said of the pledges made on Wednesday that ''this should be the floor on which they work, rather than a ceiling.''
People involved in the internal Chinese debates said the seeds of Mr. Xi's announcement could be found in public anger over rising levels of toxic smog in China. Over the past two years, Chinese cities have recorded some of the worst air pollution readings in the world.
To address the problem, Chinese leaders have turned their attention to cutting back the country's reliance on coal, a main pillar of the economy but also a major source of pollution. That led to discussions about how weaning Chinese industries off coal would not just clean the air, but would also permit China to make global commitments in the battle against climate change, the insiders said.
Last month, the departing European Union climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, said that halting the growth in Chinese carbon dioxide emissions much sooner than 2030 would ''be a very important gift from China to the whole world,'' according to a report by Agence France-Presse.
Policy makers and climate experts inside and outside China face the task of assessing the trajectory that China's emissions are on now, and whether China must do more to change course.
Internally, Chinese scientists and officials have been crunching data to try to pinpoint when carbon emissions will peak and how high that peak will be, given current economic growth projections and energy policies, but their estimates have varied. Foreign scientists and policy makers are also trying to judge whether Mr. Xi's 2030 pledge represents a genuine campaign by the Chinese government to fight climate change, or just a business-as-usual date when emissions would probably have leveled off anyway.
A 2011 study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory suggests that it is not far from business as usual. Economic trends and government policies in China, the study said, had already put the nation on course to reach a peak sometime between 2030 and 2035, with an annual output of 12 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2033. More aggressive measures, it said, might limit the peak to about 9.7 billion metric tons and advance the date to about 2027.
A study released last month by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology had somewhat different conclusions, with Chinese emissions peaking at 10 billion metric tons sometime between 2025 and 2035 if aggressive measures like higher carbon and coal taxes are imposed.
Wang Tao, an expert on climate and energy policy at the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy in Beijing, said that meeting President Xi's 2030 pledge ''would still demand quite a lot of change from China, in terms of energy structure and pushing for nonfossil-fuel renewables to reduce the reliance on coal.''
He called the 2030 goal a ''reasonable target,'' but he added, ''Certainly the government could do more than that, and should be encouraged to.''
Wang Yi, a professor at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, said that a consensus had grown recently among experts in China that the 2030 date was achievable, and that 2025 would be a more ambitious goal. But as recently as last week, researchers from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and the China Meteorological Administration issued a report saying that even with ''stringent environmental planning,'' the country's emissions were not likely to peak until 2035.
As for renewable energy, Chinese officials have been trying in recent years to encourage development of alternatives to coal, including hydroelectric power, wind and solar energy and nuclear power.
Mr. Li, the Greenpeace researcher, said Mr. Xi's 20-percent goal was ambitious. He said the country would need to add 800 to 1,000 gigawatts of power generation capacity from renewable sources over the next 15 years to meet the goal -- a remarkable figure, given that the country now has a total of just 1,250 gigawatts of capacity from all sources, most of it coal-fueled.
At the end of 2013, China got 9.8 percent of its energy from sources not linked to fossil fuels, and the government intends to reach 15 percent by 2020.
''Twenty percent does sound fairly robust,'' said Jake Schmidt, director of the international program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group in New York. ''You're talking about 20 percent of a huge economy being based on noncarbon-dioxide-emissions sources. That's significant.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/world/asia/climate-change-china-xi-jinping-obama-apec.html
LOAD-DATE: November 13, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
357 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 13, 2014 Thursday
Late Edition - Final
In Climate Deal, Obama May Set a Theme for 2016
BYLINE: By CORAL DAVENPORT; Ashley Parker contributed reporting.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1237 words
WASHINGTON -- President Obama's landmark agreement with China to cut greenhouse gas pollution is a bet by the president and Democrats that on the issue of climate change, American voters are far ahead of Washington's warring factions and that the environment will be a winning cause in the 2016 presidential campaign.
A variety of polls show that a majority of American voters now believe that climate change is occurring, are worried about it, and support candidates who back policies to stop it. In particular, polls show that majorities of Hispanics, young people and unmarried women -- the voters who were central to Mr. Obama's victories in 2008 and 2012 -- support candidates who back climate change policy.
But Republicans are betting that despite the polls, they can make the case that regulations to cut greenhouse pollution will result in the loss of jobs and hurt the economy.
''This announcement is yet another sign that the president intends to double-down on his job-crushing policies no matter how devastating the impact for America's heartland and the country as a whole,'' said Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio.
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the soon-to-be majority leader, was no less critical. ''This unrealistic plan, that the president would dump on his successor, would ensure higher utility rates and far fewer jobs,'' he said in a statement.
Mr. McConnell's remarks were a hint of a line of attack Republicans are certain to use on Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is expected to run for president in 2016. The architect of Mr. Obama's climate change plan is none other than his senior counselor, John D. Podesta, who is likely to leave the White House next year to work as the chairman of Mrs. Clinton's campaign.
The climate plan that Mr. Podesta has drafted for Mr. Obama is expected to serve as a blueprint for Mrs. Clinton's climate change policy, should she run.
Since the deal Mr. Obama made with China calls for the United States to cut its planet-warming carbon pollution by as much as 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025, he has effectively placed the obligation on his successor to meet that goal.
That dynamic sets up climate change as a potentially explosive issue on the 2016 campaign trail, which may pit Mrs. Clinton against a field of Republican candidates who question and deny the science that human activity causes global warming. A number of prospective Republican presidential candidates have already attacked what they say is Mr. Obama's ''war on coal.''
Mr. Obama has muscled through his climate change agenda almost entirely with executive authority, bypassing a Congress that has repeatedly refused to enact sweeping new climate change laws. In addition to the agreement with China announced Wednesday in Beijing, Mr. Obama has used the 1970 Clean Air Act to issue ambitious Environmental Protection Agency regulations intended to cut pollution from vehicle tailpipes and power-plant smokestacks.
Mr. Podesta, a political veteran who was also President Bill Clinton's chief of staff, devised the 2025 targets to ensure that they could be reached without new action from a future Congress. Abandoning them would require the next president to overturn them. From the Republican point of view, a Democratic candidate who might instead issue still more environmental regulations would be a ripe target for 2016.
''They're giving Republicans fertile ground for attack,'' said Mike Murphy, a longtime Republican strategist. ''Overregulation is clearly a job killer and jobs and the economy and middle-class wages are going to be a huge issue in the 2016 presidential. And it does seem like an inside job, with Podesta setting up Hillary's position. Politically, they're going to put themselves in a weak position on this.''
As evidence, Republican strategists point to their recent wave of victories in this year's midterm elections, when they campaigned aggressively against Mr. Obama's E.P.A. regulations.
But Democrats are increasingly emboldened by polls showing that in national elections, candidates who push climate change policies will win support from voters.
According to a 2013 poll by Stanford University, 73 percent of Americans believe that the earth has been warming over the past 100 years, while 81 percent of Americans think global warming poses a serious problem in the United States. In addition, 81 percent think the federal government should limit the amount of greenhouse gases that American businesses can emit.
Twenty-one percent of Americans think producing electricity from coal is a good idea, while 91 percent of Americans think making electricity from sunlight is a good idea.
A 2014 poll by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, meanwhile, found that majorities of women, minorities and young people support candidates who strongly endorse climate action. That poll found that 65 percent of Hispanics, 53 percent of blacks and 53 percent of unmarried women support candidates who back climate change action.
It found that 44 percent of people in their 20s favor candidates who support climate change action, compared with 17 percent who oppose climate action.
''These groups were hugely important in the 2008 and 2012 elections,'' said Anthony A. Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale project. ''And they will be more important in 2016, because they are starting to make up a greater portion of the electorate.''
Mrs. Clinton has not laid out a specific climate change policy that she might pursue as president, but she has enthusiastically supported efforts to reduce carbon pollution -- including Mr. Obama's regulations. At a September conference on clean energy in Nevada she called climate change ''the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a nation and a world,'' and said that Mr. Obama's E.P.A. regulations put the United States in ''a strong position'' in international negotiations.
Democrats also believe that Wednesday's announcement weakens at least one crucial Republican argument against climate action. For years, Republicans have argued that the United States should not take unilateral action on climate change because it would hamstring the economy while China, the world's largest carbon polluter, failed to act. But the agreement with China undercuts that argument.
For Republicans, the issue of climate change, like immigration and same-sex marriage, is one that potential candidates and their advisers are starting to grapple with as they try to carve a path to the presidency, while winning support from a new generation of more diverse voters.
Republicans who seek to win their presidential nomination will have to win support from their conservative base -- white and older voters, who, polls show, are less likely to believe that climate change is a problem. More important, Republicans do not want to be targeted by conservative outside groups like Americans for Prosperity, the political advocacy group funded by the libertarian billionaires Charles and David Koch.
Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity, has said that his group intends to aggressively attack any Republican candidate in the 2016 primaries who endorses carbon regulations.
But some Republican strategists worry that the position on climate change that could help win them their party's nomination could hurt them in a general election, particularly in a contest with a larger number of young and minority voters.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/world/asia/in-climate-deal-with-china-obama-may-set-theme-for-2016.html
LOAD-DATE: November 13, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
358 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 13, 2014 Thursday
Late Edition - Final
Fruitful Visit by Obama Ends With a Lecture From Xi
BYLINE: By MARK LANDLER; Jane Perlez contributed reporting from Beijing, and Keith Bradsher from Hong Kong.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; NEWS ANALYSIS; Pg. 6
LENGTH: 1184 words
BEIJING -- The White House pushed very hard for President Xi Jinping to take questions during his news conference with President Obama at the end of their two days of meetings Wednesday. It did not want a repeat of the stilted, scripted encounter Mr. Obama had with Mr. Xi's predecessor, Hu Jintao, in 2009 on his first trip to China as president.
What the White House got was Xi Jinping, Unplugged, and that may have been more than it bargained for.
Discarding his standard bromides about the importance of new ''major-country'' relations between the United States and China, the Chinese leader delivered an old-fashioned lecture. He warned foreign governments not to meddle in the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong and foreign journalists to obey the law in China.
Mr. Xi's thinly concealed anger turned a news conference that should have been a victory lap for two leaders who had just had a productive meeting into a riveting example of why the relationship between the United States and China remains one of the most complicated in the world. The determination to work together belies deep-rooted historical grievances; the happy talk of win-win solutions masks a ferocious rivalry.
The cooperation that Mr. Obama and Mr. Xi announced this week is real. Their joint plan to confront climate change could transform negotiations for a new global climate treaty. Their pledge to warn each other's militaries about exercises could avert a calamitous clash in the treacherous waters of the South and East China Seas.
And yet Mr. Obama and Mr. Xi found themselves standing before the news media in the Great Hall of the People, wrestling with the same issues that could have divided Nixon and Mao, or Bill Clinton and Jiang Zemin, who jousted with each other in a 1998 news conference, which Mr. Jiang had broadcast live across the country.
Wednesday's session lacked the personal warmth of that exchange. For all their walks and private dinners, here and at the Sunnylands estate in California last year, Mr. Obama and Mr. Xi have fashioned a relationship that is based, above all, on pragmatism.
Mr. Obama said his meetings with Mr. Xi had given him the chance to debunk the notion that ''our pivot to Asia is about containing China.'' Mr. Xi said: ''It's natural that we don't see eye to eye on every issue. But there have always been more common interests between China and the United States than the differences between us.''
There is plenty of evidence that Mr. Xi is right, from concerns about Iran and North Korea to climate change and counterterrorism. But there are countervailing tensions when a rising power flexes its muscles against an established one, and as a Communist empire bristles at the judgments of a powerful democracy. All of this was on vivid display Wednesday.
The tensions surfaced after the two leaders finished their opening statements and Mr. Xi seemed to ignore two questions from a reporter for The New York Times -- about whether China feared that the Obama administration's pivot to Asia represented a threat to China, and whether China would ease its refusal to issue visas to foreign correspondents in light of a broader visa agreement with the United States.
White House officials said Mr. Obama had called on The Times reporter to make a point. Several of the newspaper's China correspondents had their visas applications denied by the government, an issue Mr. Obama raised with Mr. Xi in one of their meetings.
After first taking an unrelated, clearly scripted, question from a state-owned Chinese paper -- which drew a quizzical facial expression from Mr. Obama -- Mr. Xi circled back, declaring that the visa problems of the news organizations, including The Times, were of their own making.
Mr. Xi insisted that China protected the rights of news media organizations but that they needed to abide by the rules of the country. ''When a certain issue is raised as a problem, there must a reason,'' he said, evincing no patience for the news media's concerns about being penalized for unfavorable news coverage of Chinese leaders and their families.
The Chinese leader reached for an unexpected metaphor to describe the predicament of The Times and other foreign news organizations, saying they were suffering the equivalent of car trouble. ''When a car breaks down on the road,'' he said through an interpreter, ''perhaps we need to get off the car and see where the problem lies.''
''The Chinese say, 'let he who tied the bell on the tiger take it off,' '' Mr. Xi added, in a somewhat enigmatic phrase that was not immediately translated into English. It is normally interpreted as ''the party which has created the problem should be the one to help resolve it.''
Mr. Xi was also dismissive of concerns about a surge of anti-American sentiment in the Chinese news media. One state-owned publication described Mr. Obama's leadership style as insipid. ''I don't think it's worth fussing over these different views,'' Mr. Xi said.
He bluntly warned the United States and other foreign countries not to get involved in the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong, responding to an earlier question to Mr. Obama about recurring rumors in the Chinese press that the United States was stirring up the unrest there. The Occupy Central movement, he said, is illegal.
''Hong Kong affairs are exclusively China's internal affairs, and foreign countries should not interfere in those affairs in any form or fashion,'' Mr. Xi said, reading from notes he had scribbled.
Taken together, the statements offered an unvarnished glimpse at China's president, two years into his term and after his extraordinary consolidation of power. He is neither a garrulous operator like Mr. Jiang nor a colorless party bureaucrat like Mr. Hu.
''Xi is in the early years of his term, is a very confident and strong leader, and has a quite focused policy agenda,'' said David Shambaugh, the director of the China policy program at George Washington University.
Orville Schell, a longtime China observer at the Asia Society in New York, said Mr. Xi's statements on the foreign news media, the first time he had publicly addressed the issue, were a ''dash of cold water.''
''We had thought that China might be slowly evolving away from this retrograde notion of the media,'' Mr. Schell added. But he noted that in a speech last month, Mr. Xi had echoed Mao's view that the news media should function as a ''necessary handmaiden of the party.''
Mr. Obama seemed content to play the straight man to Mr. Xi. He insisted that the United States had nothing to do with the Hong Kong protests, though he voiced support for free expression. And his references to human rights were carefully calibrated -- reaffirming, for example, that the United States does not recognize a separate Taiwan or Tibet.
As Mr. Obama enters the twilight of his presidency, he appears determined not to let passions get in the way of cooperation with China. Asked about the negative portrayal of him in the Chinese press, he said it came with being a public official, in China or the United States. ''I'm a big believer in actions and not words,'' he said.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/world/asia/china-us-xi-jinping-obama-apec.html
LOAD-DATE: November 13, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China attended a ceremony Wednesday at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing before holding a news conference. (PHOTOGRAPH BY ANDY WONG/ASSOCIATED PRESS)
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News Analysis
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
359 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 13, 2014 Thursday
Late Edition - Final
A Major Breakthrough on Climate Change
BYLINE: By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; EDITORIAL; Pg. 32
LENGTH: 734 words
The deal jointly announced in Beijing by President Obama and China's president, Xi Jinping, to limit greenhouse gases well beyond their earlier pledges is both a major diplomatic breakthrough and -- assuming both sides can carry out their promises -- an enormously positive step in the uncertain battle against climate change.
The announcement provided the high point of a surprisingly productive trip that also resulted in steps to cut tariffs on information technology products, extend visas and strengthen military contacts to build trust and avoid confrontations in the South China Sea. But the two countries have major differences, including over cybersecurity and human rights.
The climate accord represents a startling turnaround after years of futile efforts to cooperate in a meaningful way on global warming. It sends two critically important messages, one to the world and the other to the United States Congress. China and the United States together account for about 45 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Their new commitments are thus almost certain to energize other countries to set more ambitious targets of their own before negotiators meet to frame a new global agreement at the climate summit meeting in Paris in December 2015.
In the United States, the agreement cuts the ground from under people like Mitch McConnell, the next Senate majority leader, and others who have long argued that there is no point in taking aggressive steps against greenhouse gases as long as major developing countries refused to do likewise. This argument effectively undermined Senate support for ratification of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The climate deniers in Congress will find other reasons to oppose a strong climate strategy, and are doing so even now. But the ''China'' argument has effectively disappeared.
The most striking aspect of China's commitment is its agreement to a hard cap on emissions. It pledged for the first time to have its emissions ''peak'' by 2030 and sooner if possible. Until now, China has spoken only about reducing carbon ''intensity,'' which really meant allowing emissions to rise but at a slower rate. In the race to head off the unacceptable consequences of climate change, the name of the game is to stop emissions from rising at some point and then bend the curve downward. China has now committed itself to that path.
China has also set itself the daunting but not unobtainable goal of increasing the share of non-fossil fuel energy to one-fifth of the country's energy mix in the next 15 years. This, too, is no small deal. By one estimate, this would mean adding 800 to 1,000 gigawatts of nuclear, wind, solar and other zero-emission power generating capacity, roughly equivalent to China's current coal-fired capacity.
The task Mr. Obama has set for the United States is also formidable, especially given the political obstacles. At the Copenhagen climate summit meeting in 2009, Mr. Obama pledged to reduce emissions in the United States by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. America is thought to be more than halfway there now, in part because of greatly increased automobile efficiency, the switch to natural gas and the closing down of some old coal-fired power plants and a prolonged recession.
He now pledges an ambitious 26 percent cut below 2005 levels by 2025. This will mean, at an absolute minimum, following through on his proposals to limits emissions from new and existing coal-fired power plants -- proposals that have already generated significant pushback. And it almost certainly will require cuts in emissions other than carbon dioxide, including methane leaks from the production and transmission of natural gas, as well as continued investment in alternative, non-fossil fuels. And as much of this as possible should be accomplished or set in motion before Mr. Obama leaves office.
For Mr. Obama, the meetings were a demonstration that the new Asia-focused policy he announced in three years ago can yield real substance. For Mr. Xi, they were a chance to show leadership and calm tensions with neighboring countries that have been alarmed by his aggressive, even dangerous regional policies. The United States and China remain serious competitors on many fronts, pushing rival free trade pacts and jousting for regional influence. But the leaders have shown that productive cooperation is possible; their task now is to keep it going.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/opinion/climate-change-breakthrough-in-beijing.html
LOAD-DATE: November 13, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Editorial
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
360 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 13, 2014 Thursday
Late Edition - Final
Climate Accord Relies on Environmental Policies Now in Place
BYLINE: By HENRY FOUNTAIN and JOHN SCHWARTZ; Edward Wong, Coral Davenport and Justin Gillis contributed reporting.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 10
LENGTH: 1254 words
For all the pronouncements about the United States and China reaching a historic climate pact, the agreement they announced Wednesday does not signal a seismic shift in policies by either nation, experts said.
The United States and China should both be able to meet the stated goals by aggressively pursuing policies that are largely in place, these analysts said. For the United States, those include the Obama administration's proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal plants, which would go into effect in 2017. Experts said that in practice it should be possible to wring more emissions cuts from that and other climate-related measures without adding to costs.
''We think that the tools are there to meet this target,'' said David Doniger, director of the climate program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Politics, of course, may get in the way -- Republicans in Congress vowed to fight the power plant proposal even before it was introduced in June, and some, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who is set to become the majority leader next year, have already sharply criticized the China pact.
Policy analysts said a changing energy mix for China, including a buildup of renewable energy sources and nuclear power, had been in the works for some time. ''What China is pledging to do here is not a lot different from what China's policies are on a track to deliver,'' said David G. Victor, who studies climate policy at the University of California at San Diego.
Wang Yi, a professor at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, said experts in China had reached a consensus that the 2030 date was achievable for its targets, and that 2025 would be a more ambitious goal.
The agreement, announced during President Obama's visit with President Xi Jinping in Beijing, calls for the United States to reduce carbon emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025. That represents a significant acceleration in the rate of reduction from the president's earlier pledge to cut emissions 17 percent by 2020.
For its part, China has agreed to pursue policies that will lead the country to its peak in carbon dioxide emissions by 2030, or earlier if possible, and to increase the proportion of renewables in its energy mix to about 20 percent by then.
Experts said the emissions reductions in the agreement would not be enough to enable the world to keep global warming below the target of a 2-degree Celsius, or 3.6-degree Fahrenheit, rise in global temperatures that was adopted at a climate meeting in Copenhagen in 2009.
Beyond the reductions, they said, the deal is important for what it shows the rest of the world, particularly other large carbon emitters like India and Russia, in advance of a meeting in Paris next year to negotiate a new climate treaty.
''It shows that the two big dogs in the room are taking the issue seriously,'' said Kevin Kennedy of the World Resources Institute, a think tank. ''It provides a real opportunity for the start of what could become a race to the top.''
But it remains unclear whether that will happen. In India, the world's third-largest carbon polluter, the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has signaled that it will not announce a reduction target for emissions cuts. India has long maintained that it should not be required to commit to such goals.
''I doubt the Indian government is going to change anything at this time,'' said Rajendra M. Abhyankar, a former Indian ambassador to the European Union and a professor of public diplomacy at Indiana University's School of Public and Environmental Affairs. ''The action by China might create a notional pressure, but I doubt it will be a great pressure.''
Still, the new agreement has given a fresh jolt of optimism to the Paris negotiations, where the American and Chinese targets are expected to be the focus. Nearly two decades ago, the world's first climate change treaty, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, failed to stop the rise of carbon emissions in large part because of a standoff between China and the United States.
Under the new pact, the United States would roughly double the current rate of emissions reductions from 2020 to 2025, to close to 3 percent per year on average. A White House statement said that target was ''grounded in intensive analysis of cost-effective carbon pollution reductions achievable under existing law.''
The administration was short on specifics, but Mr. Doniger said one reason reductions might accelerate might simply be momentum -- measures that are already in place will have more impact over time.
The Environmental Protection Agency, for example, has already issued vehicle emissions standards that become tighter through 2025. ''The improvement ramps up, and that's already done,'' Mr. Doniger added.
Similarly, he said, measures to curb leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from oil and gas production, which the Obama administration is considering, should have increasing effect as that industry grows over time. ''If you have sensible leakage controls, you get a very big reduction,'' he said.
As for the administration's proposal to reduce power plant emissions, called the Clean Power Plan, Mr. Doniger said, some of the calculations were based on cost estimates that were out of date. With more accurate figures, particularly for the cost of renewable energy and energy efficiency improvements, he said, more emissions reductions will be possible under the plan without raising costs.
Mr. Kennedy of the World Resources Institute said the United States's commitment to increasing the rate of emissions reductions was an important part of the agreement. ''In some ways, it's not where we end up in 2025,'' he said, ''but whether at that point we are increasing the rate of decline in emissions or flattening out.''
In China, people involved in the internal debates said the seeds of the announcement on Wednesday could be found in public anger over rising levels of smog. To address the problem, Chinese leaders have turned their attention to cutting the country's reliance on coal, a main pillar of the economy but also a major source of pollution.
That led to discussions about how weaning Chinese industries off coal would not just clean the air, but would also permit China to make global commitments in the battle against climate change, the insiders said.
Jake Schmidt, director of the international program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the work to reduce emissions had already begun in China, with coal-consumption peak targets in populous areas, and heavy investment in clean energy technology and deployment. ''As China takes the next steps, it's got a solid foundation on which to build,'' he said.
And Mr. Xi will not face the kind of political pushback that Mr. Obama does in the United States. ''They have their own challenges, but effectively, the minute that President Xi Jinping made the announcement, it became the law of the land.''
Hal Harvey, who runs a policy research group called Energy Innovation in San Francisco and has spent weeks in China this year working on the emissions problem, said that even though the policies already in place or previously announced would take the countries a long way toward meeting their targets, they nevertheless were significant.
''In effect, it ratifies stuff that's underway,'' he said. ''But I still think it's important. The Chinese take international announcements very seriously, and this has now set a tone for the entire government of what they're going to do.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/world/climate-pact-by-us-and-china-relies-on-policies-now-largely-in-place.html
LOAD-DATE: November 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: CHARTS: Climate Goals Pledged by China and the U.S.: President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China announced a climate change agreement on Wednesday that includes a new goal for U.S. carbon emissions and a commitment by China to curb its emissions and increase the share of its energy consumption that comes from renewable and nuclear sources. (Sources: Energy Information Administration
World Bank
BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2014) (CHARTS BY ALICIA PARLAPIANO/THE NEW YORK TIMES)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
361 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Ross Douthat)
November 13, 2014 Thursday
A Test For Climate Hawks
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 1440 words
HIGHLIGHT: Has the liberal quest for a global climate regime just been vindicated?
The just-announced U.S.-China agreement (really an Obama-China agreement, of course, in this age of executive-branch creativity) on greenhouse gas emissions is being widely hailed by liberals as proof positive that their theory of climate change policy and politics was basically correct. First the U.S. had to "show leadership" by promising to cut emissions, many self-styled climate hawks had argued during the debates over cap and trade and the president's E.P.A. regulations, because then and only then the world's developing economies would be pressured/shamed/persuaded into following along. And so it has come to pass, they now suggest: First came Obama's emission targets and greenhouse gas rules, and then, not that long delayed, came the first formal Chinese pledge to cap their emissions by a date certain.
So what do conservatives have to say for themselves now, asks New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait? Only transparent denialism about the facts of our remarkably successful diplomacy:
It would be nice to think that evidence like today's pact would at least soften the GOP's unyielding certainty about the absolute impossibility of a global climate accord. The near-total refusal of the right to reconsider its denial of the theory of anthropogenic global warming sadly suggests otherwise. James Inhofe, the incoming chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a fervent climate science skeptic, has quickly dismissed the deal as a "hollow and not believable" and a "non-binding charade."
Mitch McConnell adds his own diplomatic insight. "As I read the agreement, it requires the Chinese to do nothing at all for 16 years." That is an extremely ignorant way to read the agreement. The apparent basis for his belief is that China's highly ambitious targets apply in 2030, so McConnell seems to believe China can do nothing until then, and perhaps pull a huge New Year's Eve 2030 all-nighter frantically replacing thousands of coal plants with nuclear and solar. If McConnell reads the agreement more carefully, or even consults with people who understand how environmental accords work, he might realize that other countries have ways of tracking your progress and calculating whether you're on track to meet a future emissions target. More likely he would just come up with a different soundbite to justify his position.
That's a good joke about New Year's 2030, but I think it's likely that McConnell was actually referring to another possibility: The scenario in which these "highly ambitious" Chinese emissions targets that we've won in exchange for our own regulatory moves turn out to be, well, actually just the targets China was on track to hit already, regardless of what kind of leadership we showed. This possibility gets acknowledged, eventually, in some of the pieces hailing the agreement, like this one from Slate's Will Oremus, which starts by explaining that China will probably keep their promise and we won't because dictatorships are just better at getting things done than democracies (a common theme in columns praising the deal, albeit one not entirely vindicated by the environmental record of the last century), and ends by conceding that actually, maybe China will keep their promise because they haven't actually promised all that much:
But it might not even take a big policy shift in order for the country to meet the targets it agreed to on Wednesday. Thanks to broader development trends, like a projected slowing of population growth and urbanization, some analysts were already forecasting that China's emissions would peak by 2030 ...
Now, there's plenty of disagreement about that likely peak date, predictions being what they are, and China will certainly have to do more than McConnell's "nothing" to live up to its end of the bargain. At the same time, that bargain is really just a non-binding target with no actual enforcement mechanisms, so one likely scenario if development trends don't pay off as expected is the one Tyler Cowen sketches here: China works to clean up its visible air pollution problem, because that's the problem that has immediate political repercussions for the regime, and then declares victory if it comes anywhere close to hitting the CO2 target and/or tells some all-too-characteristic lies to make it look like it's come much closer than it has.
Does this make the deal meaningless or useless? Not necessarily: Symbolism and public leadership do matter in international affairs, even if they don't necessarily matter as much as climate hawks (like other sorts of hawks) persistently believe. But nothing about this widely-hailed bargain as yet invalidates the basic case for skepticism about the quest for a global climate regime, because nothing about China's actions as yet invalidates the argument that the globe's diverse group of developing-world actors are only ever likely to act to explicitly cap emissions when it seems to be in their immediate national interest (or when, as in this case, that "cap" may just a description of a trend), and that they are therefore very unlikely to be meaningfully bound by international rules or regulations that in any way directly constrain their ability to emit as their economies seem to require.
Being skeptical of climate change regulations in this sense does not mean believing that no developing nation's emissions will ever level off or fall, or that no developing nation will ever take steps to limit their emissions. Indeed, the skeptics assume that both will happen, as those nations get richer, technology advances, domestic constituencies for environmentalism develop and so forth. They're just doubtful about the power of diplomacy and international treaties and carbon regimes to meaningfully accelerate this process (as such regimes have mostly notto date in contexts far more promising than the People's Republic of China). And with that doubt, in turn, comes a skepticism about the wisdom of having the United States take steps on its own that don't necessarily pass a domestic cost-benefit test in order to somehow set up a larger process that probably isn't going to work anyway, and that our rivals will have every incentive to seek to game in order to gain at our expense.
Which is, I think, at least as compelling a read on what's happened during the administration's current waltz with Beijing as the rah-rah enviro-triumphalism of writers like Chait. The president set one target in his first term because he thought it would help bring China to the table, and then later he promised even deeper reductions, and what he won in return was ... a nonbinding target that our leading global rival was quite possibly already headed toward in the first place. Doesn't such a deal seem, just possibly, to be somewhat better from the Chinese perspective than from ours? And if you're Beijing, and just agreeing to the idea of cooperation seems to induce an American administration to impose more regulations on the U.S. economy, why wouldn't you be delighted to play that game for as long as it can reasonably be play? At the very least, the idea that this is the first step in a long "cooperation begets cooperation" process that leads to the brilliant global treaty that's effectively enforced is still a very much unproven theory, and one that flies in the face of a great deal of accumulated evidence on how international politics actually works.
Now: With all of that said, the president's regulations are taking effect with or without a Chinese handshake, the deal is as non-binding on us as it is on them, and in the end this White House's regulatory moves have an expiration date two years hence, so even for skeptics of this approach it's not clear that there's a major downside to this quasi-bargain. And while it isn't the kind of vindication for climate hawks that Chait and others are suggesting, it does put the hawks in the position of having their ideas put to the test - next year in Paris - in a more favorable context than the last few not-so-successful global go-rounds on this issue. So by the time the next administration enters office, two years hence,we'll have a lot more useful information about the feasibility of this "America must lead" approach, and a lot more evidence as to whether it's a realistic path to an insurance policy against climate change or whether it's just the Green Lanternism of the environmentalists.
You know which way I lean, but it's always good thing to have competing theories of an important case put to a legitimate test. So for all my still-abiding skepticism I basically welcome what just happened, and let's see what happens next.
LOAD-DATE: November 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
362 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Times Insider)
November 13, 2014 Thursday
A Reporter's Questions About the Climate Change Agreement.
BYLINE: JOHN SCHWARTZ
LENGTH: 478 words
HIGHLIGHT: The Times science reporter John Schwartz, who focuses on climate change, sketches out the things he’ll be watching in the days ahead.
The Times science reporter John Schwartz, who focuses on climate change, sketches out the questions he'll be asking in the days ahead.
The climate agreement announced by President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China is long on promises and short on details.
It calls for the United States to cut greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 - a significant bump from the administration's earlier goal of reducing those emissions by 17 percent by 2020. For its part, China has agreed to pursue policies that will lead the country to stop its growth in carbon dioxide emissions by 2030, or earlier if possible, and to increase the amount of non-fossil-fuel energy production in China's mix to about 20 percent by then.
How these measures are to be achieved is another matter.
The announcement leaves many unanswered questions, including:
- What more might the United States have to do to reach the more ambitious emissions goals the president announced in China?
The White House fact sheet on the announcement noted that President Obama called for the 17 percent reduction in 2009, and has since added muscle to that pledge with June 2014 rules from the Environmental Protection Agency requiring power plants to reduce their emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030; other standards are in the works to reduce emissions from heavy-duty engines and vehicles, expected in March 2016. The E.P.A. and other agencies have been ordered to take actions that will cut methane emissions from landfills, coal mining, oil and gas systems, and other sources. The two nations have agreed to boost research and development of the kinds of technologies that produce clean energy, including methods of capturing carbon emissions from coal plants. Whether those efforts will be stepped up, or additional measures will need to be taken, to meet a goal that is roughly double the pace of those earlier reduction goals, is unclear.
- How can China achieve these ambitious goals?
In fact, experts on China's energy policies say the country has been shifting toward a mix of power sources that, over time, could reduce emissions in the range called for by the agreement. David Victor, a longtime climate policy analyst at the University of California, San Diego, said that the importance of the agreement lies in the commitment from China's leadership to stand behind these policy goals.
- Will this get the world to the often-stated goal of holding the rise in overall global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius?
The deal announced Tuesday cannot, in itself, stop the temperature rise projected by groups like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Supporters of the deal note, however, that this is the kind of deal that can serve as a foundation for larger agreements among more nations.
LOAD-DATE: November 17, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
363 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 12, 2014 Wednesday 7:49 PM GMT
Republicans vow to use expanded powers to thwart US-China climate deal;
Obama's opponents looking for ways to undermine bold climate change strategy that could bring about drastic reduction in carbon emissions
BYLINE: Paul Lewis and Suzanne Goldenberg Washington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1282 words
Republicans promised on Wednesday to use their expanded power in Congress to undermine Barack Obama's historic deal over carbon emissions with China on Wednesday, claiming Beijing could not be trusted to see through its side of an agreement that would ultimately damage the US economy.
The hard-hitting response from top Republicans to the historic deal between the US and China - the world's two largest emitters - foreshadowed an expected collision with the White House over climate climate change that looks set to define Obama's last two years in office and could shape the 2016 presidential elections.
That fight will encompass top-line carbon emissions targets set by White House, rules implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that will reduce pollution from power stations and a looming and totemic decision over the Keystone XL pipeline.
Emboldened by their victory in last week's midterm elections, which gave Republicans control over the Senate as well as the House of Representatives, the president's opponents are searching for ways to hobble a bold climate change strategy that Obama's aides believe could be the legacy of his second term in office.
Democrats mostly applauded the US-China deal as an ambitious step that, if implemented, could help to bring about the drastic reduction in carbon emissions required to prevent a catastrophic environmental consequences.
Republican Mitch McConnell, who is certain to take over as majority leader of the Senate in January, fresh from a decisive electoral triumph in the coal-rich state of Kentucky, said he would make it a priority in the next Congress to ease the burden placed on the energy sector by EPA limits on carbon emissions.
McConnell, whose campaign for re-election focused on what he said was Obama's "war on coal", is considering withholding funding from the EPA to prevent it from enforcing rules set by the administration. He did not specifically address any such measures on Wednesday but said that "easing the burden already created by EPA regulations" would be a priority for the Republican-controlled Congress.
Those EPA rules, unveiled by the Obama administration in June last year, will require carbon pollution from power plants to be cut by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030. The limits led the groundwork for Wednesday's deal in which China agreed to cap emissions for the first time and the US committed to deep reductions by 2025.
The deal was welcomed by climate change campaigners across the world as an important step ahead of efforts to reach a global deal on reducing emissions beyond 2020 at a United Nations meeting in Paris next year.
The deal challenges Republicans in Washington because it undercuts one of their principal arguments against restriction on greenhouse gas emissions: that unilateral action by the US handicaps economic competition China, which is the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases and refuses to play by the same rules.
Building on the momentum from the China deal, Obama hopes to reach a global deal on reducing emissions beyond 2020 at a United Nations meeting in Paris next year that his Republican opponents will almost certainly oppose.
Meanwhile, a separate battle is brewing in Washington over the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, a politically contentious decision which the Obama administration has repeatedly delayed. The Keystone project, which would project to transport crude oil from Canada to refineries on the US Gulf Coast, that has become a hugely symbolic proxy for the battle between environmentalists and the corporate energy sector.
McConnell has already signalled he will use Republican control of the Senate to put pressure on Obama to approve Keystone, but in an expected twist Democratic leaders in the Senate are reportedly considering whether to allow a vote on the pipeline during the lame-duck session.
Doing so would deprive McConnell from claiming responsibility for the much-anticipated vote on the pipeline and, more significantly for Democrats, would be a boost to Mary Landrieu, the party's Louisiana senator who is facing an uphill battle to hold onto her seat in a December runoff election.
A Democratic aide confirmed the plan, first reported by Bloomberg, was under consideration, but stressed the final decision lay with the outgoing majority leader, Harry Reid. A Keystone vote would be an acknowledgement that Republicans will almost certainly pass a vote to approve the pipeline in January, and throw a raft to Landrieu, who has used her position as chair of the energy committee to lobby for the pipeline to be approved.
Obama's action on climate change is particularly objectionable to Republicans because it relies solely upon the powers invested in the executive. After becoming president, Obama sought to deal with climate change through Congress, but Republican opposition made that highly unlikely. Ever since he has focused on the considerable range of actions his administration can take independently of Congress. A flurry of other EPA announcements are expected in the weeks and months ahead.
Yet without a two-thirds majority of both chambers of Congress, Republicans are unable to force Obama's hand on Keystone or override the EPA rules that they argue would be particularly harmful in states like Kentucky.
The fight against the deal is likely to be led in the Senate by Jim Inhofe, the Oklahoma senator who is in line to become chairman of the Senate environment and public works in January. Inhofe, a longstanding climate change denier who recently said global warming a hoax, described the US-China deal as "non-binding charade". He added: "As we enter a new Congress, I will do everything in my power to rein in and shed light on the EPA's unchecked regulations."
Under the secretly negotiated deal unveiled by Obama and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in Beijing, China, which previously had only ever pledged to reduce the rapid rate of growth in its emission, will cap its output by 2030. Additionally, it has also promised to increase its use of energy from zero-emission sources to 20% by 2030.
John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the House, said the deal was "job crushing" and added: "It is the latest example of the president's crusade against affordable, reliable energy."
The deal also involves the US going further than it had previously pledged. It doubles the pace of US carbon pollution reduction - from 1.2% per year from 2005 to 2020, to 2.3-2.8% from 2020 to 2025.
Inhofe said the deal held the US to different standard. "It's hollow and not believable for China to claim it will shift 20% of its energy to non-fossil fuels by 2030, and a promise to peak its carbon emissions only allows the world's largest economy to buy time," he said.
Obama's top advisers said the deal was significant. "To put it plainly, this is a big deal," said John Podesta, counselor to the president, whose oversees climate change and energy policy.
"This target keeps us on track to reduce our carbon pollution on the order of 80% by 2050, and means the US is doing our part to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius."
Podesta is widely tipped to play a key role the Hillary Clinton's expected bid for the White House in 2016. A future Democratic president is unlikely to object to the targets inherited from the Obama administration, but a Republican president would not feel so tightly bound to them.
With the exception of New Jersey governor Chris Christie, whose apparent position on climate change has veered over time, the views of potential Republican candidates range from scepticism about the scientific evidence of manmade climate change to outright denial of its existence.
LOAD-DATE: November 12, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
364 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 12, 2014 Wednesday 6:58 PM GMT
Republican set for top environment post says US-China climate deal is a 'charade';
Senator Jim Inhofe warns China can not be trusted and said he would do everything in his power to undermine White House plan to cut carbon
BYLINE: Paul Lewis in Washington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 727 words
The Republican poised to take over the Senate's top environment job attacked the carbon emissions deal struck between US and China on Wednesday as a "non-binding charade" and said he will use his new powers to fight against regulation of the energy sector.
Jim Inhofe, who is set to become chairman of the Senate environment and public works committee, warned that China could not be trusted to see through its side of the deal and said he would do everything in his own power to undermine a White House plan to cut carbon pollution from power plants.
The incoming Senate majority leader, Republican Mitch McConnell, struck a similar tone, describing the agreement as an example of Barack Obama's "ideological war on coal".
"This unrealistic plan, that the president would dump on his successor, would ensure higher utility rates and far fewer jobs," McConnell said. "It's time for more listening, and less job-destroying red tape."
John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the House, said the "job-crushing" deal was "the latest example of the president's crusade against affordable, reliable energy".
The US-China pledge, negotiated behind the scenes and unveiled between Obama and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in Beijing earlier on Wednesday, has committed China to capping emissions for the first time and the US committing to deep reductions by 2025.
It has been welcomed by climate change campaigners across the world as an important step ahead of efforts to reach a global deal on reducing emissions beyond 2020 at a United Nations meeting in Paris next year.
The deal challenges Republicans in Washington because it undercuts one of their principal arguments against restriction on greenhouse gas emissions: that unilateral action by the US handicaps economic competition China, which is a the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases and refuses to play by the same rules.
China, which previously had only ever pledged to reduce the rapid rate of growth in its emission, has now agreed to cap its output by 2030. It has also promised to increase its use of energy from zero-emission sources to 20% by 2030.
The US has pledged to cut its emissions to 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025. The European Union had already endorsed a binding 40% greenhouse gas emissions reduction target by 2030.
Inhofe said the deal was lopsided in China's favour and indicated the country's leader could not be trusted to see through its pledge.
"In the president's climate change deal, the United States will be required to more steeply reduce our carbon emissions while China won't have to reduce anything," he said. "It's hollow and not believable for China to claim it will shift 20% of its energy to non-fossil fuels by 2030, and a promise to peak its carbon emissions only allows the world's largest economy to buy time."
Inhofe and McConnell both said that last week's midterm elections, in which Republicans swept to victories across the country and regained control of the Senate, indicated voters had rejected Obama's historic decision in June to cut carbon pollution from power plants by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030.
The new rules, to be implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), represented the first time that any US president has moved to regulate carbon pollution from power plants - the largest single source of carbon dioxide emissions that cause climate change - and laid the ground for this week's deal with China.
"The American people spoke against the president's climate policies in this last election," Inhofe said. "They want affordable energy and more economic opportunity, both which are being diminished by overbearing EPA mandates."
In a reference to his widely-expected chairmanship - which climate scientists fear Inhofe will use to promote his discredited belief that global warming is is a "hoax" - the senator added: "As we enter a new Congress, I will do everything in my power to rein in and shed light on the EPA's unchecked regulations."
Describing the US-China agreement as "job-destroying red tape", McConnell said: "Easing the burden already created by EPA regulations will continue to be a priority for me in the new Congress."
Boehner added: "Republicans have consistently passed legislation to rein in the EPA and stop these harmful policies from taking effect, and we will continue to make this a priority in the new Congress."
LOAD-DATE: November 12, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
365 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 12, 2014 Wednesday 5:44 PM GMT
US-China climate deal boosts global talks but Republicans vow to resist;
US to double pace of emissions cuts, China to cap carbon pollution by 2030Senator McConnell: deal means 'higher utility rates and far fewer jobs'Interactive: how the world uses coalGuardian analysis: 'a historic milestone'
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington, Lenore Taylor in Canberra and Tania Branigan in Beijing
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1312 words
A secretly negotiated agreement between the US and China to lower greenhouse-gas output faced a wall of opposition on Wednesday from Republicans in Washington, who threatened to use their control of both houses of Congress to thwart the plan.
Under the deal, unveiled unexpectedly in Beijing early on Wednesday, China committed for the first time to cap its output of carbon pollution by 2030. Beijing also promised to increase its use of zero-emission energy sources, such as wind and solar power, to 20% by 2030.
The United States agreed to double the pace of the cuts in its emissions, reducing them to between 26% and 28% below 2005 levels by 2025.
The deal struck between President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, provides an important boost to efforts to reach a global deal to fight climate change at a United Nations meeting in Paris next year. The accord also removes the Republicans' main rationale for blocking Obama's efforts to cut carbon pollution - the claim that China is unwilling to undertake similar cuts.
But Republicans in the US Congress reacted strongly against the deal on Wednesday. The party already held a majority in the House of Representatives, and the midterm elections last week also delivered them control of the Senate, where the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said Obama would not be in the White House long enough to see the plan through.
"This unrealistic plan, that the president would dump on his successor, would ensure higher utility rates and far fewer jobs," he said.
In his first meeting with the incoming Republican majority, McConnell, who represents the coal state of Kentucky, said he was "distressed" at the deal, adding that the diplomatic breakthrough would have no effect on his disdain for international climate negotiations.
"As I read the agreement it requires the Chinese to do nothing at all for 16 years while these carbon emissions regulations are creating havoc in my state and around the country," he said.
The Republican speaker of the House, John Boehner, also attacked the deal, and suggested he would move legislation to further limit Obama's ability to deliver the carbon pollution cuts he promised.
The White House has said the US can deliver the promised reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through existing regulations, including the Environmental Protection Agency's new rules for power plants, which are the core of Obama's climate agenda.
But Boehner said: "Republicans have consistently passed legislation to rein in the EPA and stop these harmful policies from taking effect, and we will continue to make this a priority in the new Congress."
Jim Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican and climate denier who is poised to take over the Senate environment and public works committee in January, said China's end of the bargain was just a ploy to buy time.
"It's hollow and not believable for China to claim it will shift 20% of its energy to non-fossil fuels by 2030 and a promise to peak its carbon emissions only allows the world's largest economy to buy time," he said. "As we enter a new Congress I will do everything in my power to rein in and shed light on the EPA's unchecked regulations."
President Obama hailed the deal at a joint press conference with his Chinese counterpart at the Great Hall of the People. "As the world's largest economies and greatest emitters of greenhouse gases we have special responsibility to lead the global effort against climate change," he said. "I am proud we can announce a historic agreement. I commend President Xi, his team and the Chinese government for the commitment they are making to slow, peak and then reverse China's carbon emissions."
President Xi said: "We agreed to make sure international climate change negotiations will reach agreement as scheduled at the Paris conference in 2015 and agreed to deepen practical cooperation on clean energy, environmental protection and other areas."
The early opposition in Washington raised questions about whether the US and China will be able to deliver on their respective commitments. Obama administration officials argue the new US target is achievable under existing laws.
But with Republicans in control of Congress, there is virtually no prospect of new climate legislation, and there could be delays that would weaken regulations put in place by the EPA before they come into force. "The US target looks like it's going to be really tough to meet without new laws," Michael Levi, an energy and environment fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in a blog post.
"The EPA power plant rules as they're currently proposed are already spurring plenty of pushback; pressing them further will be a tall political and technical task. In particular, it's near-impossible to imagine achieving these goals simply with actions taken during the Obama administration. President Obama's administration may have developed and negotiated these numbers, but his successor will determine whether they're achieved."
China also faces technical challenges to reaching its targets.
The White House said in a statement that China could reach peak emissions even earlier than 2030 "based on its broad economic reform programme, plans to address air pollution and implementation of President Xi's call for an energy revolution".
But the White House acknowledged it would be more difficult for China to scale up to 20% energy from zero-emission sources by 2030.
"It will require China to deploy an additional 800-1,000 gigawatts of nuclear, wind, solar and other zero-emission generation capacity by 2030 - more than all the coal-fired power plants that exist in China today and close to total current electricity generation capacity in the United States," the White House said.
Some campaign groups also pointed out that the agreement - while ambitious - still did not go as far as scientists say is needed to limit dangerous warming.
The European Union has already endorsed a binding 40% greenhouse gas emissions reduction target by 2030.
Diplomats said they hoped that the US-China deal would provide momentum to climate negotiations.
Officials are to meet in Lima at the end of the month to begin the last phase of negotiations for a global deal to cut emissions in Paris. As part of those talks, countries will also be preparing to put forward their own targets for cutting emissions by early 2015.
Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council, and Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission president, urged other countries to show their hand on emissions cuts: "We welcome the announcement today by the presidents of the United States and China on their respective post-2020 actions on climate change.
"The announcements to date cover around half of the global emissions. We urge others, especially the G20 members, to announce their targets in the first half of 2015 and transparently. Only then we can assess together if our collective efforts will allow us to fulfil the goal of keeping global temperature increases well below 2C."
Tao Wang, climate scholar at the Tsinghua-Carnegie Center for Global Policy in Beijing, said: "It is a very good sign for both countries and injects strong momentum [into negotiations] but the targets are not ambitious enough and there is room for both countries to negotiate an improvement.
"That figure isn't high because China aims to reach about 15% by 2020, so it is only a five percentage point increase in 10 years, and given the huge growth in renewables it should be higher."
Andrew Steer, president of the World Resources Institute, which promotes sustainable resource management, said the announcements would "inject a jolt of momentum in the lead-up to a global climate agreement in Paris".
"It's a new day to have the leaders of the US and China stand shoulder to shoulder and make significant commitments to curb their country's emissions," he said.
LOAD-DATE: November 12, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
366 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 12, 2014 Wednesday 5:22 PM GMT
The real story of US coal: inside the world's biggest coalmine;
Despite Obama's pledge to cut carbon emissions, production at North Antelope Rochelle mine in Wyoming is booming - and climate change is off the agenda. Suzanne Goldenberg gets a rare look inside the biggest coalmine in the world· Interactive: how the world uses coal
BYLINE: Report by Suzanne Goldenberg and video by Mae Ryan in North Antelope Rochelle Mine, Wyoming
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1872 words
In the world's biggest coalmine, even a 400 tonne truck looks like a toy. Everything about the scale of Peabody Energy's operations in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming is big and the mines are only going to get bigger - despite new warnings from the United Nations on the dangerous burning of fossil fuels, despite Barack Obama's promises to fight climate change, and despite reports that coal is in its death throes.
At the east pit of Peabody's North Antelope Rochelle mine, the layer of coal takes up 60ft of a 250ft trough in the earth, and runs in an uninterrupted black stripe for 50 miles.
With those vast, easy-to-reach deposits, Powder River has overtaken West Virginia and Kentucky as the big coalmining territory. The pro-coal Republicans' takeover of Congress in the mid-term elections also favours Powder River.
"You're looking at the world's largest mine," said Scott Durgin, senior vice-president for Peabody's operations in the Powder River Basin, watching the giant machinery at work. "This is one of the biggest seams you will ever see. This particular shovel is one of the largest shovels you can buy, and that is the largest truck you can buy."
By Durgin's rough estimate, the mine occupies 100 square miles of high treeless prairie, about the same size as Washington DC. It contains an estimated three billion tonnes of coal reserves. It would take Peabody 25 or 30 years to mine it all.
But it's still not big enough.
On the conference room wall, a map of North Antelope Rochelle shows two big shaded areas containing an estimated one billion tonnes of coal. Peabody is preparing to acquire leasing rights when they come up in about 2022 or 2024. "You've got to think way ahead," said Durgin.
In the fossil fuel jackpot that is Wyoming, it can be hard to see a future beyond coal. One of the few who can is LJ Turner, whose grandfather and father homesteaded on the high treeless plains nearly a century ago.
Turner, who raises sheep and cattle, said his business had suffered in the 30 years of the mines' explosive growth. Dust from the mines was aggravating pneumonia among his Red Angus calves. One year, he lost 25 calves, he said.
"We are making a national sacrifice out of this region," he said. "Peabody coal and other coal companies want to keep on mining, and mine this country out and leave it as a sacrifice and they want to do it for their bottom line. It's not for the United States. They want to sell it overseas, and I want to see that stopped."
As do some of the most powerful people on the planet. About 120 world leaders met at the United Nations (UN) in September to commit to fighting climate change - many noting that the evidence of warming was occurring in real time. Obama last year proposed new rules that will make it almost impossible to build new coal power plants.
Last week, an exhaustive UN report from the world's top scientists warned of "severe, widespread and irreversible impacts" without dramatic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
Coal is also facing competition from cheap natural gas. Peabody had a very bad year in 2013, losing $525m (£328m) as global demand for coal flatlined.
But despite the promises from Obama and other world leaders the use of coal for energy rose again last year in America, Europe and in Asia - and so did the emissions that cause climate change.
Peabody continued to post losses this year. But extraction and revenue from the Powder River Basin mines went up - and company officials say they could ship out even more coal if they could just get the trains to run on time.
On an average day, 21 long freight trains full of coal leave North Antelope Rochelle bound for 100 power plants across the country. But the company says that's still not enough. As for climate change - that's hardly Peabody's concern.
The company is deeply reluctant to even mention the words. Durgin, who refuses to appear on camera, introduced himself an "active environmentalist, not an environmental activist".
Chris Curran, a Peabody spokesman, refused to talk about climate change or the effects of Obama's efforts to cut carbon emissions on the company's profits. "They are only proposed regulations right now. Nothing is going on," he said.
It takes a call to the senior vice-president of corporate communications, Vic Svec, at the head office in St Louis before the company will discuss climate change. As it turns out, the company's official position is that there is no such thing as human-caused climate change. "We do not question the climate changing. It has been changing for as long as man has recorded history," Svec said. Climate change was a "modelled crisis", he went on.
"What we would say is that there is still far more understanding that is required for any type of impacts of C02 on carbon concerns." Asked whether he saw climate change as a threat, Svec said: "Climate concerns are a threat to the extent that they lead to policies that hurt people."
Peabody's official position on climate science is divorced from scientific reality. But their grasp of the politics of coal clearly is not.
America gets about 40% of its electricity from coal - and by far the biggest share of that coal comes from Powder River. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), its use of coal for energy rose 4.8% last year, in part because of the Arctic blasts of the polar vortex. Carbon dioxide emissions from energy registered one of their steepest rises in the last quarter century.
Australia, where Peabody has three mines and which has the world's second largest reserves of coal, has ramped up production 37% since 2000, helped by up to $3.5bn in government subsidies to the entire fossil fuel industry, a forthcoming report from the Overseas Development Institute and Oil Change International will say.
China has doubled its use of coal over the last decade. India is preparing to open its large coal reserves to foreign mining companies to meet a promise to hook up the 400 million without electricity on to the grid in the next five years.
Coal use in Germany rose last year for the third year in a row, even as the country met its ambitious targets to transition to wind and solar power. Poland has been promoting its coal as an alternative to Russian natural gas.
Overall global coal use rose 3% last year, faster than any other fossil fuel, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy.
That's a disaster in the making, scientists and energy experts say. The International Energy Agency has concluded that two-thirds of all fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground if the world is going to avoid crossing the 2C threshold into dangerous climate change.
Obama agrees. Burning all of those fossil fuels would trigger "dire consequences" for the planet, he told an interviewer last June. "We're not going to be able to burn it all."
But the reality is that Obama has spent the last six years expanding coal, oil and gas production under his "all of the above" energy strategy.
"We quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We've added enough new oil and gas pipeline to encircle the earth and then some," Obama told a rally during his 2012 re-election campaign.
Coal exports have risen on Obama's watch, with mining companies shipping some 100m tonnes a year for each of the last three years. Mining companies are actively pursuing plans to expand coal ports and ship more coal overseas, as a back-up market should the incoming Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules on carbon pollution make it harder to burn coal for electricity.
Meanwhile, the federal government, under Obama, gave away $26m last year in tax breaks to the coal industry, according to the Overseas Development Industry report.
Even if the president wants to do more to curb coal, the Democrats' heavy defeat in the mid-term elections means there will be no pull in that direction from Congress. Mitch McConnell, the Republicans' leader in the Senate ran on a slogan of "Guns, Freedom and Coal".
But even before the mid-terms, campaigners say the rise in coal use under Obama undermines his climate agenda and could wipe out efforts by other countries to fight climate change. Last July, a judge in Colorado agreed, throwing out a mining permit granted by the Bureau of Land Management on the grounds that it would worsen climate change.
What's especially frustrating, campaigners say, is that Powder River Basin coal is on public lands, which means that Obama could intervene to limit future mines.
"This whole notion that you can just address the smoke stack is wishful thinking at the end of the day. Why wouldn't you address the problem from cradle to grave? Why wouldn't you trace it all the way back to where it is being produced rather than just look at the stack?" said Jeremy Nichols, climate and energy director from Wild Earth Guardians.
Campaigners say they see little evidence Obama has tried to curb coal use. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which oversees extraction on public lands, shows little sign of incorporating Obama's climate change directive into future planning.
The agency came in for scathing criticism from government auditors earlier this year who said the BLM gave up too much control to the mining companies, and sold coal too cheaply, to the detriment of US taxpayers.
Those low prices are crucial to Peabody's business model. "It's a high volume, lower priced product and we can still ship literally across the country and compete," Durgin said. In 2012, the company acquired the rights to mine an additional billion tonnes of coal, paying just $1.11 a tonne. Peabody also pays 12.5% royalties to the US federal government, once the coal is mined.
Campaigners say such prices represent a giveaway that allows mining companies like Peabody to keep the prices for Powder River Basin coal artificially low.
Campaigners also argue low coal prices make it harder to ramp up production from renewable energy sources like wind and solar.
"We have never seen leases of more than a billion tonnes and we are starting to see that under the Obama Administration," Nichols said.
The Department of Interior, which has final authority over public lands, refused to respond to multiple requests for comment on its efforts to implement Obama's climate policies.
Instead, a stock email attributed to Jessica Kershaw, the interior spokeswoman, confirmed that Obama was committed to mining more coal.
"As part of the Obama Administration's all-of-the-above energy strategy, the Department of the Interior and specifically the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is committed to the safe and responsible development of both traditional and renewable energy resources on public lands," the email read.
"The BLM also recognizes that coal is a key component of America's comprehensive energy portfolio and the nation's economy. "
The email did not mention climate change.
For Peabody though, the aim is expansion. The company produced 134m tonnes of coal from its combined Powder River Basin mines last year, and was on track to increase production this year, Durgin said.
"I've been asked when is the end of the mine," said Durgin. "I don't know. Economics will tell us that." So long as Obama pursues policies that keep coal cheap, that end is unlikely to come soon.
LOAD-DATE: November 12, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
367 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 12, 2014 Wednesday 12:18 PM GMT
Shale gas unlikely to make the UK energy self-sufficient, says report;
Fracking's potential has been 'overhyped' by politicians and shale gas will not reduce energy prices or reliance on gas imports, says UK Energy Research Centre
BYLINE: Adam Vaughan
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 887 words
Politicians have overhyped fracking's potential and the prospect of shale gas making Britain self-sufficient in gas again is far-fetched, according to government-funded researchers.
The UK became a net importer gas in 2004 as North Sea production declined, and the coalition has heavily promoted shale gas on the grounds of energy security and economic growth. David Cameron says the UK is "going out all for shale" and on Wednesday the government announced the first 'national shale gas colleges'.
But a new report by academics at the Imperial College-based UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) says significant shale gas production in the UK is unlikely to get underway until next decade and will not reproduce the American 'shale revolution' that has put the US on course to energy self-sufficiency.
Jim Watson, an author of the report and professor of energy policy at the University of Sussex, said that industry and politicians had "overhyped" the impact shale will have on prices and energy security.
"Looking at the evidence base, it's very hard to support some of the statements made both by industry and some politicians that it's going to bring down prices, strengthen energy security or create jobs through cheaper energy any time soon. It may have an impact. But a lot depends on how fast shale develops," he said.
The authors are unambiguous that shale gas will not reduce energy prices or reduce the UK's reliance on gas imports, which are mostly supplied by Norway and Qatar today.
"Any talk of shale gas making the UK self-sufficient again, let alone allowing significant exports, is far-fetched," says the report, The UK's Global Gas Challenge. It also cautioned against "a blind belief that a future UK shale gas revolution will solve all our problems".
A second report by UKERC warns that by 2025, the time any such shale gas industry is up and running in the UK, global gas consumption must have peaked and begin rapidly tailing off to avoid dangerous levels of global warming.
With the development of widespread technology to capture and store the carbon emissions from those gas plants, that deadline moves back to 2035.
But carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is so far largely unproven at scale and the world's first major CCS power plant only switched on last month. UKERC's report says "whether CCS will actually be commercialised or not is currently far from certain", though Watson says recent developments in North America mean he is more optimistic than two years ago.
The report, A Bridge to a Low-Carbon Future? Modelling the Long-Term Global Potential of Natural Gas, suggests gas's role as a quick fix to cut carbon emissions - gas emits significantly less CO2 than coal when burned - could be short-lived.
Gas has been hailed by some advocates as a 'bridge' or 'transition' fuel as economies move to renewable energy and nuclear power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tackle climate change.
If CCS doesn't take off, to keep temperature rises under 2C as governments have agreed to do, the report's modelling showed "gas consumption peaked in 2025 and declined terminally thereafter: the role that gas can play as a transition fuel was thus substantially reduced".
However, despite the short window of opportunity, the authors say the amount of coal that could be displaced by gas is significant in terms of cutting emissions.
Dr Christophe McGlade of UCL, who led the modelling work, said: "Gas could play an important role in tackling climate change over the next 10 to 20 years."
Watson added: "In those countries which a have a lot of coal in their energy systems, China being the prime example, gas has a role to play with or without CCS." He said ensuring gas consumption peaked and declined rapidly in 2025 or 2035 would "require significant policy intervention" from governments.
Separately on Tuesday, the Department of Energy and Climate Change announced the creation of the UK's first specialist colleges for training people for the shale gas industry. Headquartered in Blackpool, the National College for Onshore Oil and Gas National College will be linked to colleges in Chester, Redcar and Cleveland, Glasgow and Portsmouth.
Matthew Hancock, the new Tory energy minister, said: "Families, villages and towns across the UK could benefit from this new industry and its supply chain which could create 64,500 jobs. That's why we are investing in the people behind project. Only by arming people with the skills they need to be shale specialists can we provide career opportunities for thousands of young people, boost the power and competitiveness of our firms and help the UK economy remain strong and competitive.
"To make a world-class cluster of expertise in the North West of England, just as Aberdeen is a world class cluster of expertise for offshore oil and gas."
Helen Rimmer, Friends of the Earth north west campaigner said in response: "The north west deserves investment in jobs and skills, but this should be in energy sectors of the future such as tidal, wave and solar which the region has in abundance - not dead-end fossil fuels."
Gas consumption in the UK has already peaked, and development of UK shale gas has been slower than expected. Hydraulic fracturing to extract shale gas will not resume until 2015, the first exploratory fracking in the country since 2011.
LOAD-DATE: November 12, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
368 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 12, 2014 Wednesday 11:57 AM GMT
United States and China reach landmark carbon emissions deal - as it happened;
The world's two largest economies strike historic, ambitious deal to cap carbon emissions and increase use of renewable energyRead the latest summary
BYLINE: Michael Safi in Sydney, and Matthew Weaver and Adam Vaughan in London
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 6336 words
block-time published-time 10.56pm AEST
Closing summary
I'm going to close the liveblog now - you'll be able to follow the latest news and reaction to the US-China emissions deal here and on @guardianeco.
The US has committed to a cut carbon emissions 26% and 28% on 2005 levels by 2020. This represents an an acceleration of its existing goal to reduce emissions 17%.
China said it "intends" to start cutting carbon emissions in 2030 and make "best efforts" to peak emissions before 2030. It also agreed to increase the share of non-fossil fuels energy consumption to around 20% by 2030.
The UN's climate chief said the announcement had helped secure humankind's future, and added momentum to next year's climate summit.
Analysts saw the news as a sign that China is engaging more constructively in international climate negotiations.
Herman van Rompuy, president of the European Council, said the US and China had "answered" a recently-agreed target of cutting EU emissions 40% by 2030, and the UK's climate secretary said major economies were getting serious on climate change
We welcome today's US-China #climate announcement, answering EU leaders' call to put forward targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
- Herman Van Rompuy (@euHvR) November 12, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.57pm AEST
block-time published-time 10.45pm AEST
The UK's energy and climate secretary, Ed Davey, says the news shows countries are getting serious on climate change ahead of Paris. There's also some bragging about UK role in the EU's carbon target, though he omits the UK also fought efforts to make a related energy-saving binding and to reduce its ambition :
Ed Davey. Photograph: Nick Ansell/PA
These climate announcements from the US and China are a clear sign that major economies are serious about getting a global deal in Paris next year.
The UK led the drive to achieve an ambitious new EU target, and others are now following the EU's lead and putting targets on the table.
I'm looking forward to discussing with the US and China how we can achieve our shared goal of keeping the global temperature rise under 2C, and avoid the most dangerous effects of climate change.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.46pm AEST
block-time published-time 10.34pm AEST
UN climate chief says US-China deal will help achieve a 'secure future'
The UN's climate change chief, Christiana Figueres, says that coming on the heels of the EU's promise last month to cut emissions 40% by 2030, the China-US deal is extremely good news for next year's Paris climate summit.
These two crucial countries have today announced important pathways towards a better and more secure future for humankind. Allied to the European Union's recent announcement, this signals an increasingly positive determination towards addressing the climate change challenge from a growing number of key economies.
This joint announcement provides both practical and political momentum towards a new, universal climate agreement in Paris in late 2015 that is meaningful, forward-looking and recognises that combating climate change is not a five or ten year plan-but is a long term commitment to keep a global temperature rise under 2C throughout this century.
Here's Figueres on film when I interviewed her earlier this year :
Christian Figueres on extreme weather and climate change.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.38pm AEST
block-time published-time 10.29pm AEST
Here's some more UK reaction. Most commentators thing this is A Big Deal, especially in terms of the UN climate summit at Paris at the end of 2015, where countries are expected to agree a deal to cut carbon emissions post-2020.
Joss Garman, associate fellow on climate change at the thinktank IPPR, and a former aviation campaigner, said:
For decades a wall has separated political action from the scientific imperative on climate change. But with one handshake, the leaders of China and the US have breached that wall. When the world meets in Paris next year for a landmark UN climate summit, it may finally crumble.
Liz Gallagher, climate diplomacy programme leader at thinktank E3G, said:
These two countries shape the global emissions trajectory. Their collaboration makes the prospects of a deal in Paris a safe bet. But a G2 agreement won't get us a good enough deal. Paris will be a negotiation, not an array of emissions reduction offers. This negotiation will need to include elements such as Finance, a long-term target, legal form, transparency and adaptation. Others can't kick back and relax, there is still much work to be done ahead of December next year.
block-time published-time 10.02pm AEST
The Guardian's head of environment, Damian Carrington, hails the deal as historic :
Be in no doubt, the agreement struck by the US and China on Wednesday to cut their carbon emissions is historic. It is the biggest step towards achieving a meaningful global deal to fight climate change in 20 years of tortuous negotiations. But also be in no doubt that, while absolutely necessary, it is a long way from being sufficient.
...
The significance of the China-US deal is that they have now put their first serious offers on the table. In fact they have done so early - the deadline for these bids set by the UN was March 2015. The deadline for a final global deal is December 2015 in Paris. Until now, it was unclear that deal would be done. But the US-China agreement has injected that most precious and rare of commodities into global climate negotiations: momentum.
Reuters' market analyst, by contrast, plays down the significance of today's news :
The joint statement by the United States and China on climate change, issued on Wednesday, is more important for its political and diplomatic symbolism than any practical effect it might have in reducing emissions.
The statement reiterates policies China and the United States have been developing on their own and contains no new binding limits on greenhouse emissions.
...
For China, climate action remains subordinate to the primary goals of economic development and political and social stability. The joint statement enshrines China's right to tackle climate change in its own way and at its own pace.
block-time published-time 9.54pm AEST
Jennifer Duggan, who is based in Shanghai and blogs for the Guardian at China's Choice, has been speaking to Ma Jun, one of China's most well-known environmentalists and director of the NGO the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs. He says today's announcement is very important and China's well-documented 'airpocalypses' caused by coal-burning are part of the motivation:
It is positive for China for the first time to make a commitment on the peaking of carbon emissions. It is very important because the previous commitment was only on carbon intensity.
It will be challenging because China's energy is very much focused on coal and the economy is very focused on heavy industry which is carbon intensive so restructuring won't be easy.
But I think that the momentum generated to solve the local air pollution problem is a push for such a commitment. To deal with local pollution, China has put on the agenda the capping of coal, which has long been a sensitive issue.
I think the recognition that this is not sustainable globally to continue this kind of coal consumption and the recognition that the local environment also can't afford it, this combination has helped to push for such a commitment.
It [coal consumption] will still grow quite a lot by 2030 so hopefully with a joint effort it could be achived even earlier. I think the momentum generated in China is quite major, people want blue sky to come faster than the original plan of 20 years.
block-time published-time 9.45pm AEST
Adam Vaughan here taking over from Matthew Weaver. You can tweet me ( @adamvaughan_uk ) and email me reaction.
Here's what today's US emissions target and China's promise to peak emissions look like. The US was the world's biggest emitter until China overtook it in 2008, and as this graph shows, even if Chinese emissions peak in 2030, they're still going to be huge.
(The figure for China's 2030 emissions is taken from a Chinese government adviser's comments earlier this year ).
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 9.47pm AEST
block-time published-time 9.14pm AEST
John Sauven from Greenpeace Photograph: John Cobb/AP
Greenpeace UK appears to be more encouraged by the deal than its colleagues in East Asia.
Executive director John Sauven hailed the announced as a "major political breakthrough" that many thought impossible".
Earlier Greenpeace's East Asia's senior climate and energy campaigner, Li Shuo, also welcomed the deal but said it fell short of a game changer and called for more ambitious targets.
Sauven appeared more encouraged, and urged the UK government to do more.
The targets announced are not yet as ambitious as scientists say they should be if we are to stop the worst ravages of climate change, but this a solid foundation stone for world leaders to build on. The EU should now lead the charge for greater ambition, building on its historical leadership and in the interests of its own clean tech sector.
For the UK government, this should be a wake-up call. The global race to a clean energy future and its huge rewards is on, and it won't be won by pandering to the fossil fuel lobby and a minority of anti-wind and anti-solar Tory backbenchers.Slashing support for wind and solar isn't just bad for the climate, it's bad for Britain's economy and our place in the world.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 9.17pm AEST
block-time published-time 9.03pm AEST
Summary
Here's a summary of the main points of the deal and the reaction to it:
The US and China have unveiled a secretly negotiated deal to reduce their greenhouse gas output, with China agreeing to cap emissions for the first time and the US committing to deep reductions by 2025. Barack Obama said the deal was an "historic agreement". China's premier, Xi Jinping, said the US and China had agreed to make sure a global climate deal is reached in Paris next year.
Under the deal the US committed to a cut in carbon emissions of between 26% and 28% on 2005 levelsby 2020. This represents an an acceleration of its existing goal to reduce emissions 17%.
China said it "intends" to start cutting carbon emissions in 2030 and make "best efforts" to peak emissions before 2030. It also agreed to increase the share of non-fossil fuels energy consumption to around 20% by 2030.
The newly elected Republican dominated Congress in the US has threatened to undermine the agreement. The US Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said the plan was "unrealistic".
Analysts have pointed out that Beijing's commitments lack ambition. Some have claimed that China was already on course to produce a fifth of its energy from renewable sources by 2020 and that its carbon emissions were already expected to peak in 2030.
The UN has welcomed the deal claiming it increases the chances of a meaningful global deal in Paris next year. UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon urged other countries to make ambitionous climate commitments.
block-time published-time 8.34pm AEST
Finland's prime minister, Alexander Stubb, is now hopeful of a meaningful climate deal in Paris.
Glad to see also USA and China announcing actions to curb climate change. Hope we reach a global agreement next year in Paris.
- Alexander Stubb (@alexstubb) November 12, 2014
block-time published-time 8.19pm AEST
Vox has a useful explainer on the importance of the deal and the questions that remain about it.
The agreement falls far short of solving climate change, it says, but it does suggests an end a diplomatic standoff on climate negotiations.
This deal is a step away from the long-standing deadlock between the two nations on climate. Many US politicians have long argued against cutting greenhouse-gas emission on the grounds that China would never act - so what was the point? And China, for its part, has long insisted that rich countries should cut their own emissions and give developing countries like China time to grow. With this deal, the two countries are beginning to cooperate rather than play an endless game of chicken.
Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping have a drink after a toast at a lunch banquet in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. Photograph: POOL/REUTERS
block-time published-time 8.08pm AEST
For all the wiggle room in the language of the deal, it could prove a "watershed" moment, according to climate change analyst Ben Adler.
Writing on the US environment blog Grist, he says:
The US and China are the world's two biggest economies, and showing that they will play their part in reducing emissions is essential to getting an international agreement at the next round of big climate negotiations in Paris in December 2015. Now the prospects are looking a lot better.
Adler also responds to those who point out that the US is making a bigger commitment than China.
Thanks to our longstanding development and wealth, the U.S. has produced 29.3 percent of global cumulative carbon emissions, while China has been responsible for only 7.6 percent. What China is planning - starting on a path of renewable development, so that it can transition from fossil fuels as quickly as possible without damaging economic growth - lays out a model for emerging economies such as India, Brazil, and Indonesia to follow.
Likewise, the U.S. is sending a message to those countries, and to the pro-fossil fuel governments in Canada and Australia, that we are serious about putting climate at the center of our international relationships.
block-time published-time 7.56pm AEST
The World Wildlife Fund said the deal sends a "jolt of energy" (presumably of the renewable kind) through talks to reach a new climate deal in Paris.
Its vice president, Lou Leonard, added:
This is further proof that President Obama understands that history will judge all of us by the actions we take today to face down the growing climate crisis.
Acting together is an historic step for the US and China, but to give the world a fighting chance to stay below 2C of warming, both countries need to stretch to reach the highest goals possible. In the case of the US, its earlier pledge to reach 30% reductions by 2025 should be a benchmark for any final Paris agreement.
block-time published-time 7.50pm AEST
Ban Ki-moon says deal raises prospects of meaningful climate agreement in Paris UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon Photograph: Imago / Barcroft Media/imago/Eibner Europa
UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon has welcomed the deal as "an important contribution" to plans for a new climate agreement in Paris next year. Ban's office said:
This leadership demonstrated by the governments of the world's two largest economies will give the international community an unprecedented chance to succeed at reaching a meaningful, universal agreement in 2015.
The Secretary-General also welcomes the commitment expressed by both leaders to increase their level of ambition over time as well as the framing of their actions in recognition of the goal of keeping global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius. The joint announcement signals that the transition towards a low-carbon, climate resilient future is accelerating...
The Secretary-General believes that a strong foundation has been laid and momentum is building towards a meaningful climate agreement in 2015.
He urges all countries, especially all major economies, to follow China and the United States' lead and announce ambitious post-2020 targets as soon as possible, but no later than the first quarter of 2015.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 8.24pm AEST
block-time published-time 7.34pm AEST
Sweden's former prime minister Carl Bildt, has hailed the deal as a "very positive step forward".
The agreement between China and US on climate emissions is certainly a very positive step forward. http://t.co/sdCFPRc2RN
- Carl Bildt (@carlbildt) November 12, 2014
But Bildt's prolific Twitter feed links through to a sceptical article on the Interpreter news site.
It says:
It's worth remembering that these are just targets (the UK set targets too, and is on track to miss them ) which are not really enforceable. And given the long lead times (2025 for Washington to meet its new emissions targets; 2030 for Beijing's emissions to peak), it's going to be difficult to hold both countries to their commitments.
Then there is the sheer scale of what the two countries have agreed to take on. The US will have to double the pace of its carbon pollution reduction to meet the new target. As for China, the US statement notes that, for Beijing to meet its target of having 20% of energy from zero-emissions sources, 'it will require China to deploy an additional 800-1,000 gigawatts of nuclear, wind, solar and other zero emission generation capacity by 2030 - more than all the coal-fired power plants that exist in China today and close to total current electricity generation capacity in the United States'. Given China's demand for coal and the fact that renewables have not risen as a percentage of global energy production in the last decade, this seems like a tall order.
block-time published-time 7.23pm AEST
The global environmental campaign 350.org said today's deal was a sign that Obama was willing to stand up to big polluters.
But its director, May Boeve, said it would be looking for proof of commitment to the deal warning that fossil fuel development such as the planned Keystone XL pipeline between the US and Canada, were incompatible with the pledge.
She added:
Today's announcement also strengthens the case for fossil fuel divestment. The US and China reaffirming their commitment to limiting global warming to 2°C should send shockwaves through the financial markets, because the only way to meet that target is by leaving 80% of fossil fuel reserves underground. The industry's business plan is simply incompatible with the pathways laid out today. It's time to get out of fossil fuels and invest in climate solutions.
US-China agreement strengthens the case for #divestment. Time to get out of fossil fuels and invest in solutions! http://t.co/b9XjAmhRrD
- 350 dot org (@350) November 12, 2014
block-time published-time 7.07pm AEST
A Chinese government adviser let slip much of today's announcement more than five months ago, points out Adam Vaughan editor of The Guardian's environment pages.
He Jiankun, chairman of China's Advisory Committee on Climate Change, told a conference in Beijing in June that an absolute cap on carbon emissions will be introduced.
"The government will use two ways to control CO2 emissions in the next five-year plan, by intensity and an absolute cap," he was reported as saying in June.
He told Reuters that the country's emissions were likely to peak at around 11bn tonnes CO2 equivalent - up from 7-9.5bn tonnes CO2e now - by 2030.
To put that in context global annual emissions were 36bn in 2013.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 7.15pm AEST
block-time published-time 6.54pm AEST
China's other pledge of getting 20% of its energy from non-fossil fuels by 2030, also appears to lack ambition, according to some analysts.
Back in June, GlobalData predicted that alternative energy sources could account for more than 20% of China total electricity generation within the next six years - 10 years earlier than the new pledge.
At the time, Harshavardhan Reddy Nagatham, GlobalData's analyst covering Alternative Energy, said:
Soaring energy demand, expeditious industrialization and international pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have impelled China to increase its share of renewable energy.
The country has introduced Feed-in Tariffs at the state and provincial level in order to promote the development of alternative energy, which has contributed to substantial capacity additions over the last decade, especially those of wind and solar power. This growth is expected to continue thanks to the government's ambitious targets for renewables.
Solar, wind and nuclear power products and industry service providers show their latest offerings at the International Solar Energy Product and Photovoltaic Engineer Exhibition in Beijing. Photograph: ADRIAN BRADSHAW/EPA
block-time published-time 6.24pm AEST
Before we get too excited about the deal, our Beijing correspondent, Jonathan Kaiman, adds some words of caution on the scale of China's commitment. He points out that for years researchers have projected that China's c02 emissions would peak around 2030.
He adds:
China's environmental authorities are notoriously opaque, making the true extent of its carbon emissions - and its progress in mitigating them - difficult to assess. In June, scientists from China, Britain and the US reviewed data from China's National Bureau of Statistics and found that the country's total emissions from 1997 to 2010 may be 20% (1.4bn tonnes) higher than reported.
An old man exercises at a smog-shrouded square in Tangshan, China. Photograph: Xinhua /Landov / Barcroft Media/Xinhua /Landov / Barcroft Media
block-time published-time 5.49pm AEST
I've just been speaking with Alexander Wang, a law professor at UCLA and an expert in the issues surrounding China's carbon emissions.
Wang said China's announcement that its carbon emissions would peak by 2030 was "a very big deal".
"They've never been willing to say a date when they would peak, so it's a big shift," he said.
But he noted that details were still limited : "[The announcement] doesn't tell us what level emissions would peak, how high emissions would be when they peak, and whether they will be able to reduce emissions after they peak; or whether they will plateau in 2030 and keep going at a high level."
President Obama is already facing opposition to the deal at home from Republicans who fear his push to slash carbon emissions would see job losses in the coal industry and higher utility prices. China sees the climate challenge differently, he said.
"In China change is mainly driven by broader efforts at what they're calling economic transformation. The sense is that the current model of heavy industry-based and export-based economic growth is reaching its limits. Those limits are pollution-based and energy-based," he said.
"There's a sense that that growth is reaching its end, so they're trying to shift towards clean technology, biotechnology."
But president Xi Jinping, too, might struggle domestically to implement some of the ambitious reforms announced today. "There's a battle going on to shift from the old model to the new model. The big central state owned enterprises, the vast majority of them are based on these heavy industries - power, coal, steel cement," Wang said.
"Both sides have their problems. In the United States, it's a Republican party that doesn't believe in the science of climate change. On the China side, I think the challenge is a fragmented government with a lot of powerful, diffuse interest groups that can thwart drastic change within the country," he said.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 5.54pm AEST
block-time published-time 5.36pm AEST
Greg Hunt welcomes deal
This statement just in from Australia's environment minister, Greg Hunt:
We welcome the announcement by the United States and China to reduce or cap emissions.
The Government is already delivering on Australia's commitment to reduce emissions by 5 per cent on 2000 levels by 2020.
We have always said that we will consider Australia's post-2020 emissions reduction targets in the lead up to next year's Paris conference. This will take into account action taken by our major trading partners.
In the meantime, what's important for Australia is that we have replaced Labor's ineffective and costly carbon tax with a policy that will actually deliver significant emissions reductions.
block-time published-time 5.34pm AEST
The White House has posted the full details of today's deal on its website. Here are the key paragraphs:
Today, the Presidents of the United States and China announced their respective post-2020 actions on climate change, recognizing that these actions are part of the longer range effort to transition to low-carbon economies, mindful of the global temperature goal of 2?. The United States intends to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its emissions by 26%-28% below its 2005 level in 2025 and to make best efforts to reduce its emissions by 28%. China intends to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030 and to make best efforts to peak early and intends to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20% by 2030. Both sides intend to continue to work to increase ambition over time.
The United States and China hope that by announcing these targets now, they can inject momentum into the global climate negotiations and inspire other countries to join in coming forward with ambitious actions as soon as possible, preferably by the first quarter of 2015. The two Presidents resolved to work closely together over the next year to address major impediments to reaching a successful global climate agreement in Paris.
The global scientific community has made clear that human activity is already changing the world's climate system. Accelerating climate change has caused serious impacts. Higher temperatures and extreme weather events are damaging food production, rising sea levels and more damaging storms are putting our coastal cities increasingly at risk and the impacts of climate change are already harming economies around the world, including those of the United States and China. These developments urgently require enhanced actions to tackle the challenge.
At the same time, economic evidence makes increasingly clear that smart action on climate change now can drive innovation, strengthen economic growth and bring broad benefits - from sustainable development to increased energy security, improved public health and a better quality of life. Tackling climate change will also strengthen national and international security.
Read the full statement here
block-time published-time 4.48pm AEST
Garnaut: US-China deal leaves Abbott government "up shit creek"
Today's deal puts intense pressure on Australia to announce a target for post-2020 greenhouse gas reductions, writes my colleague Lenore Taylor.
The US has agreed to cut its emissions by 26-28% of 2005 levels by 2025 - a doubling of the pace of its reductions. If Australia were to make similar cuts by 2025 against its 2000 benchmark, it would need to reduce emissions by between 28% and 31%.
Asked where the deal left Australia's climate change policy, the expert adviser to the former government Professor Ross Garnaut said: "Exactly where it was before the US-China announcement - up shit creek."
Australia has so far said only that it would "consider its post-2020 target as part of the review ... in 2015 on Australia's international targets and settings", taking into account what trading partners promise, and has been strongly resisting discussion of climate change at the G20 on the grounds that the meeting should focus on its central economic agenda.
As Lenore writes, today's deal explodes an often-cited excuse for Australian inaction on climate change: that Chinese emissions are increasing, and so any Australian government action would be futile. China has now pledged that its carbon emissions will begin falling in 2030 - and even sooner, if they can help it.
block-time published-time 4.37pm AEST
How much of China's energy will come from non-fossil fuels, if they stick to their pledge to use 20% renewable energy by 2030? An extraordinary amount, Deborah Nesbitt tweets:
China's promise of 20% non-fossil fuel by 2030 = 800-1000GW more than all coal power in China today and almost all US elec gen. Incredible!
- Deborah Nesbitt (@DeborahNesbitt) November 12, 2014
block-time published-time 4.18pm AEST
The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, has published this op-ed in the New York Times calling today's climate-change deal a "fresh beginning" that could inject new momentum into negotiations on a global carbon emissions compact.
The United States and China are the world's two largest economies, two largest consumers of energy, and two largest emitters of greenhouse gases. Together we account for about 40 percent of the world's emissions.
We need to solve this problem together because neither one of us can solve it alone. Even if the United States somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, it still wouldn't be enough to counteract the carbon pollution coming from China and the rest of the world. Likewise, even if China went down to zero emissions, it wouldn't make enough of a difference if the United States and the rest of the world didn't change direction.
That's the reality of what we're up against. That's why it matters that the world's most consequential relationship has just produced something of great consequence in the fight against climate change.
He goes on:
There is no question that all of us will need to do more to push toward the de-carbonization of the global economy. But in climate diplomacy, as in life, you have to start at the beginning, and t his breakthrough marks a fresh beginning. Two countries regarded for 20 years as the leaders of opposing camps in climate negotiations - have come together to find common ground, determined to make lasting progress on an unprecedented global challenge. Let's ensure that this is the first step toward a world that is more prosperous and more secure.
Read the full story here
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.20pm AEST
block-time published-time 4.14pm AEST
Domestic reaction in the United States is still rolling in, but already Republicans have indicated they will oppose the targets identified in today's deal.
Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell says president Obama has signed an "unrealistic plan" that he will " dump on his successor", and which will ensure higher gas and electricity bills and fewer jobs.
"Our economy can't take the president's ideological war on coal that will increase the squeeze on middle-class families and struggling miners," McConnell said in a statement.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.15pm AEST
block-time published-time 4.07pm AEST
Al Gore: "A major step forward"
Former US Vice-President and climate-change campaigner Al Gore has called China's pledge to began reducing its carbon emissions by 2030 "a signal of groundbreaking progress".
Today's joint announcement by President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping to reduce their nations' carbon emissions is a major step forward in the global effort to solve the climate crisis. Much more will be required - including a global agreement from all nations - but these actions demonstrate a serious commitment by the top two global polluters.
President Xi Jinping's announcement that Chinese emissions will peak around 2030 is a signal of groundbreaking progress from the world's largest polluter. President Obama's commitment to reduce US emissions despite legislative obstruction is a continuation of his strong leadership on the issue.
By demonstrating their willingness to work together, the leaders of the United States and China are opening a new chapter in global climate negotiations. This bold leadership comes at a critical time for our planet when the costs of carbon pollution affect our lives more and more each day.
block-time published-time 4.05pm AEST
Greenpeace: Announcement should be "the floor and not the ceiling" of climate action
Greenpeace East Asia's senior climate and energy campaigner, Li Shuo, has sent these comments:
The two biggest emitters have come to the realisation that they are bound together and have to take actions together. Over the past months, communications between Beijing and Washington on climate change have been carried out in a very extensive manner. This extensive engagement highlights a clear sense of collective responsibility.
However, both sides have yet to reach the goal of a truly game-changing climate relationship. There is a clear expectation of more ambition from these two economies whose emissions trajectories define the global response to climate change. Today's announcements should only be the floor and not the ceiling of enhanced actions.
block-time published-time 4.02pm AEST
My colleague Tania Branigan ( @taniabranigan ), who attended the announcement in Beijing, has sent this dispatch:
Speaking at a joint press conference at the Great Hall of the People, Obama said: "As the world's largest economies and greatest emitters of greenhouse gases we have special responsibility to lead the global effort against climate change. I am proud we can announce a historic agreement. I commend President Xi, his team and the Chinese government for their making to slow, peak and then reverse China's carbon emissions.
He said the US emissions reductions goal was "ambitious but achievable" and would double the pace at which it is reducing carbon emissions.
Obama added: "This is a major milestone in US-China relations and shows what is possible when we work together on an urgent global challenge."
He added that they hoped "to encourage all major economies to be ambitious and all developed and developing countries to work across divides" so that an agreement could be reached at the climate change talks in Paris in December next year.
Let us know your thoughts in the comments below, or tweet me at @safimichael
U.S. President Barack Obama (L) speaks to the media in front of U.S. and Chinese national flags during a joint news conference with China's President Xi Jinping (R) at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing November 12, 2014. Photograph: JASON LEE/REUTERS
block-time published-time 3.57pm AEST
Here's an indication of why today's climate-change deal between the United States and China has truly global ramifications:
Territorial carbon emissions 2013 Photograph: Source: globalcarbonatlas.org
block-time published-time 3.54pm AEST
The chief executive of the World Resources Institute, Andrew Steer, has this to say on the deal between the US and China - who together produce 40% of the world's carbon emissions:
It's a new day to have the leaders of the U.S. and China stand shoulder-to-shoulder and make significant commitments to curb their country's emissions. They have both clearly acknowledged the mounting threat of climate change and the urgency of action. It's heartening to see this level of cooperation, with climate change at the top of the agenda for the world's top emitters.
The U.S. and China should be commended for putting their initial pledges on the table so early. This should inject a jolt of momentum in the lead up to a global climate agreement in Paris.
The U.S. target shows a serious commitment to action and puts the U.S. on a path to reduce its emissions around 80 percent by mid-century. This pledge is grounded in what is achievable under existing U.S. law. However, we should not underestimate the potential of innovation and technology to bring down costs and make it easier to meet--or even exceed--the proposed targets.
China's pledge to increase non-fossil fuel energy and peak emissions around 2030 as early as possible is a major development -and reflects a shift in its position from just a few years ago. But it will be very important to see at what level and what year their emissions peak. Analysis shows that China's emissions should peak before 2030 to limit the worst consequences of climate change.
The director of the WRI's Climate Program, Jennifer Morgan, has also offered her thoughts:
Make no mistake, more needs to be done. The U.S. and China should strive to achieve the upper range of their commitments and go even further in the future. They can raise the bar to take full advantage of the economic opportunities of a low-carbon future. A growing body of evidence shows that climate action can bring economic benefits and new opportunities. International cooperation, around the CERC and other areas, can help unlock even greater levels of ambition.
The U.S. and China should make it a race to the top, catalyzing other countries to announce their targets and build momentum leading up to Paris. Today's announcement is a big step in that direction.
block-time published-time 3.47pm AEST
"A major milestone in the US-China relationship"
Welcome to our live coverage of the announcement of a historic climate-change deal between US President Barack Obama and the president of China, Xi Jinping, just announced in Beijing following nine months of secret talks.
We'll be pulling in reaction and analysis from around the world to this agreement. The joint announcement is still underway, but here are some highlights so far:
China will aim to reach peak carbon dioxide emissions by "around 2030" and strive to achieve the target earlier.
The United States will slash emissions by 26-28% from 2005 levels by 2025 - far beyond the existing target of 17% of 2005 levels by 2020.
China will seek to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in its country's energy mix to 20% by 2030.
Here's more from my colleague Lenore Taylor, including some early reaction:
Tao Wang, climate scholar at the Tsinghua-Carnegie Center for Global Policy in Beijing, said: "It is a very good sign for both countries and injects strong momentum [into negotiations], but the targets are not ambitious enough and there is room for both countries to negotiate an improvement."
China also pledged to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in its energy mix to around 20% by 2030, from less than 10% in 2013, a move that could require 1,000 gigawatts of new nuclear and renewable capacity, but Wang said the figure took China little further than "business as usual".
"That figure isn't high because China aims to reach about 15% by 2020, so it is only a five percentage point increase in 10 years, and given the huge growth in renewables it should be higher," he said.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.04pm AEST
LOAD-DATE: November 12, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
369 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 12, 2014 Wednesday 11:02 AM GMT
United States and China reach landmark carbon emissions deal - live;
The world's two largest economies strike historic, ambitious deal to cap carbon emissions and increase use of renewable energyRead the latest summary
BYLINE: Michael Safi in Sydney, Matthew Weaver and AdaAdam Vaughan London
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 5570 words
block-time published-time 10.02pm AEST
The Guardian's head of environment, Damian Carrington, hails the deal as historic :
Be in no doubt, the agreement struck by the US and China on Wednesday to cut their carbon emissions is historic. It is the biggest step towards achieving a meaningful global deal to fight climate change in 20 years of tortuous negotiations. But also be in no doubt that, while absolutely necessary, it is a long way from being sufficient.
...
The significance of the China-US deal is that they have now put their first serious offers on the table. In fact they have done so early - the deadline for these bids set by the UN was March 2015. The deadline for a final global deal is December 2015 in Paris. Until now, it was unclear that deal would be done. But the US-China agreement has injected that most precious and rare of commodities into global climate negotiations: momentum.
Reuters' market analyst, by contrast, plays down the significance of today's news :
The joint statement by the United States and China on climate change, issued on Wednesday, is more important for its political and diplomatic symbolism than any practical effect it might have in reducing emissions.
The statement reiterates policies China and the United States have been developing on their own and contains no new binding limits on greenhouse emissions.
...
For China, climate action remains subordinate to the primary goals of economic development and political and social stability. The joint statement enshrines China's right to tackle climate change in its own way and at its own pace.
block-time published-time 9.54pm AEST
Jennifer Duggan, who is based in Shanghai and blogs for the Guardian at China's Choice, has been speaking to Ma Jun, one of China's most well-known environmentalists and director of the NGO the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs. He says today's announcement is very important and China's well-documented 'airpocalypses' caused by coal-burning are part of the motivation:
It is positive for China for the first time to make a commitment on the peaking of carbon emissions. It is very important because the previous commitment was only on carbon intensity.
It will be challenging because China's energy is very much focused on coal and the economy is very focused on heavy industry which is carbon intensive so restructuring won't be easy.
But I think that the momentum generated to solve the local air pollution problem is a push for such a commitment. To deal with local pollution, China has put on the agenda the capping of coal, which has long been a sensitive issue.
I think the recognition that this is not sustainable globally to continue this kind of coal consumption and the recognition that the local environment also can't afford it, this combination has helped to push for such a commitment.
It [coal consumption] will still grow quite a lot by 2030 so hopefully with a joint effort it could be achived even earlier. I think the momentum generated in China is quite major, people want blue sky to come faster than the original plan of 20 years.
block-time published-time 9.45pm AEST
Adam Vaughan here taking over from Matthew Weaver. You can tweet me ( @adamvaughan_uk ) and email me reaction.
Here's what today's US emissions target and China's promise to peak emissions look like. The US was the world's biggest emitter until China overtook it in 2008, and as this graph shows, even if Chinese emissions peak in 2030, they're still going to be huge.
(The figure for China's 2030 emissions is taken from a Chinese government adviser's comments earlier this year ).
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 9.47pm AEST
block-time published-time 9.14pm AEST
John Sauven from Greenpeace Photograph: John Cobb/AP
Greenpeace UK appears to be more encouraged by the deal than its colleagues in East Asia.
Executive director John Sauven hailed the announced as a "major political breakthrough" that many thought impossible".
Earlier Greenpeace's East Asia's senior climate and energy campaigner, Li Shuo, also welcomed the deal but said it fell short of a game changer and called for more ambitious targets.
Sauven appeared more encouraged, and urged the UK government to do more.
The targets announced are not yet as ambitious as scientists say they should be if we are to stop the worst ravages of climate change, but this a solid foundation stone for world leaders to build on. The EU should now lead the charge for greater ambition, building on its historical leadership and in the interests of its own clean tech sector.
For the UK government, this should be a wake-up call. The global race to a clean energy future and its huge rewards is on, and it won't be won by pandering to the fossil fuel lobby and a minority of anti-wind and anti-solar Tory backbenchers.Slashing support for wind and solar isn't just bad for the climate, it's bad for Britain's economy and our place in the world.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 9.17pm AEST
block-time published-time 9.03pm AEST
Summary
Here's a summary of the main points of the deal and the reaction to it:
The US and China have unveiled a secretly negotiated deal to reduce their greenhouse gas output, with China agreeing to cap emissions for the first time and the US committing to deep reductions by 2025. Barack Obama said the deal was an "historic agreement". China's premier, Xi Jinping, said the US and China had agreed to make sure a global climate deal is reached in Paris next year.
Under the deal the US committed to a cut in carbon emissions of between 26% and 28% on 2005 levelsby 2020. This represents an an acceleration of its existing goal to reduce emissions 17%.
China said it "intends" to start cutting carbon emissions in 2030 and make "best efforts" to peak emissions before 2030. It also agreed to increase the share of non-fossil fuels energy consumption to around 20% by 2030.
The newly elected Republican dominated Congress in the US has threatened to undermine the agreement. The US Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said the plan was "unrealistic".
Analysts have pointed out that Beijing's commitments lack ambition. Some have claimed that China was already on course to produce a fifth of its energy from renewable sources by 2020 and that its carbon emissions were already expected to peak in 2030.
The UN has welcomed the deal claiming it increases the chances of a meaningful global deal in Paris next year. UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon urged other countries to make ambitionous climate commitments.
block-time published-time 8.34pm AEST
Finland's prime minister, Alexander Stubb, is now hopeful of a meaningful climate deal in Paris.
Glad to see also USA and China announcing actions to curb climate change. Hope we reach a global agreement next year in Paris.
- Alexander Stubb (@alexstubb) November 12, 2014
block-time published-time 8.19pm AEST
Vox has a useful explainer on the importance of the deal and the questions that remain about it.
The agreement falls far short of solving climate change, it says, but it does suggests an end a diplomatic standoff on climate negotiations.
This deal is a step away from the long-standing deadlock between the two nations on climate. Many US politicians have long argued against cutting greenhouse-gas emission on the grounds that China would never act - so what was the point? And China, for its part, has long insisted that rich countries should cut their own emissions and give developing countries like China time to grow. With this deal, the two countries are beginning to cooperate rather than play an endless game of chicken.
Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping have a drink after a toast at a lunch banquet in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. Photograph: POOL/REUTERS
block-time published-time 8.08pm AEST
For all the wiggle room in the language of the deal, it could prove a "watershed" moment, according to climate change analyst Ben Adler.
Writing on the US environment blog Grist, he says:
The US and China are the world's two biggest economies, and showing that they will play their part in reducing emissions is essential to getting an international agreement at the next round of big climate negotiations in Paris in December 2015. Now the prospects are looking a lot better.
Adler also responds to those who point out that the US is making a bigger commitment than China.
Thanks to our longstanding development and wealth, the U.S. has produced 29.3 percent of global cumulative carbon emissions, while China has been responsible for only 7.6 percent. What China is planning - starting on a path of renewable development, so that it can transition from fossil fuels as quickly as possible without damaging economic growth - lays out a model for emerging economies such as India, Brazil, and Indonesia to follow.
Likewise, the U.S. is sending a message to those countries, and to the pro-fossil fuel governments in Canada and Australia, that we are serious about putting climate at the center of our international relationships.
block-time published-time 7.56pm AEST
The World Wildlife Fund said the deal sends a "jolt of energy" (presumably of the renewable kind) through talks to reach a new climate deal in Paris.
Its vice president, Lou Leonard, added:
This is further proof that President Obama understands that history will judge all of us by the actions we take today to face down the growing climate crisis.
Acting together is an historic step for the US and China, but to give the world a fighting chance to stay below 2C of warming, both countries need to stretch to reach the highest goals possible. In the case of the US, its earlier pledge to reach 30% reductions by 2025 should be a benchmark for any final Paris agreement.
block-time published-time 7.50pm AEST
Ban Ki-moon says deal raises prospects of meaningful climate agreement in Paris UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon Photograph: Imago / Barcroft Media/imago/Eibner Europa
UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon has welcomed the deal as "an important contribution" to plans for a new climate agreement in Paris next year. Ban's office said:
This leadership demonstrated by the governments of the world's two largest economies will give the international community an unprecedented chance to succeed at reaching a meaningful, universal agreement in 2015.
The Secretary-General also welcomes the commitment expressed by both leaders to increase their level of ambition over time as well as the framing of their actions in recognition of the goal of keeping global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius. The joint announcement signals that the transition towards a low-carbon, climate resilient future is accelerating...
The Secretary-General believes that a strong foundation has been laid and momentum is building towards a meaningful climate agreement in 2015.
He urges all countries, especially all major economies, to follow China and the United States' lead and announce ambitious post-2020 targets as soon as possible, but no later than the first quarter of 2015.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 8.24pm AEST
block-time published-time 7.34pm AEST
Sweden's former prime minister Carl Bildt, has hailed the deal as a "very positive step forward".
The agreement between China and US on climate emissions is certainly a very positive step forward. http://t.co/sdCFPRc2RN
- Carl Bildt (@carlbildt) November 12, 2014
But Bildt's prolific Twitter feed links through to a sceptical article on the Interpreter news site.
It says:
It's worth remembering that these are just targets (the UK set targets too, and is on track to miss them ) which are not really enforceable. And given the long lead times (2025 for Washington to meet its new emissions targets; 2030 for Beijing's emissions to peak), it's going to be difficult to hold both countries to their commitments.
Then there is the sheer scale of what the two countries have agreed to take on. The US will have to double the pace of its carbon pollution reduction to meet the new target. As for China, the US statement notes that, for Beijing to meet its target of having 20% of energy from zero-emissions sources, 'it will require China to deploy an additional 800-1,000 gigawatts of nuclear, wind, solar and other zero emission generation capacity by 2030 - more than all the coal-fired power plants that exist in China today and close to total current electricity generation capacity in the United States'. Given China's demand for coal and the fact that renewables have not risen as a percentage of global energy production in the last decade, this seems like a tall order.
block-time published-time 7.23pm AEST
The global environmental campaign 350.org said today's deal was a sign that Obama was willing to stand up to big polluters.
But its director, May Boeve, said it would be looking for proof of commitment to the deal warning that fossil fuel development such as the planned Keystone XL pipeline between the US and Canada, were incompatible with the pledge.
She added:
Today's announcement also strengthens the case for fossil fuel divestment. The US and China reaffirming their commitment to limiting global warming to 2°C should send shockwaves through the financial markets, because the only way to meet that target is by leaving 80% of fossil fuel reserves underground. The industry's business plan is simply incompatible with the pathways laid out today. It's time to get out of fossil fuels and invest in climate solutions.
US-China agreement strengthens the case for #divestment. Time to get out of fossil fuels and invest in solutions! http://t.co/b9XjAmhRrD
- 350 dot org (@350) November 12, 2014
block-time published-time 7.07pm AEST
A Chinese government adviser let slip much of today's announcement more than five months ago, points out Adam Vaughan editor of The Guardian's environment pages.
He Jiankun, chairman of China's Advisory Committee on Climate Change, told a conference in Beijing in June that an absolute cap on carbon emissions will be introduced.
"The government will use two ways to control CO2 emissions in the next five-year plan, by intensity and an absolute cap," he was reported as saying in June.
He told Reuters that the country's emissions were likely to peak at around 11bn tonnes CO2 equivalent - up from 7-9.5bn tonnes CO2e now - by 2030.
To put that in context global annual emissions were 36bn in 2013.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 7.15pm AEST
block-time published-time 6.54pm AEST
China's other pledge of getting 20% of its energy from non-fossil fuels by 2030, also appears to lack ambition, according to some analysts.
Back in June, GlobalData predicted that alternative energy sources could account for more than 20% of China total electricity generation within the next six years - 10 years earlier than the new pledge.
At the time, Harshavardhan Reddy Nagatham, GlobalData's analyst covering Alternative Energy, said:
Soaring energy demand, expeditious industrialization and international pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have impelled China to increase its share of renewable energy.
The country has introduced Feed-in Tariffs at the state and provincial level in order to promote the development of alternative energy, which has contributed to substantial capacity additions over the last decade, especially those of wind and solar power. This growth is expected to continue thanks to the government's ambitious targets for renewables.
Solar, wind and nuclear power products and industry service providers show their latest offerings at the International Solar Energy Product and Photovoltaic Engineer Exhibition in Beijing. Photograph: ADRIAN BRADSHAW/EPA
block-time published-time 6.24pm AEST
Before we get too excited about the deal, our Beijing correspondent, Jonathan Kaiman, adds some words of caution on the scale of China's commitment. He points out that for years researchers have projected that China's c02 emissions would peak around 2030.
He adds:
China's environmental authorities are notoriously opaque, making the true extent of its carbon emissions - and its progress in mitigating them - difficult to assess. In June, scientists from China, Britain and the US reviewed data from China's National Bureau of Statistics and found that the country's total emissions from 1997 to 2010 may be 20% (1.4bn tonnes) higher than reported.
An old man exercises at a smog-shrouded square in Tangshan, China. Photograph: Xinhua /Landov / Barcroft Media/Xinhua /Landov / Barcroft Media
block-time published-time 5.49pm AEST
I've just been speaking with Alexander Wang, a law professor at UCLA and an expert in the issues surrounding China's carbon emissions.
Wang said China's announcement that its carbon emissions would peak by 2030 was "a very big deal".
"They've never been willing to say a date when they would peak, so it's a big shift," he said.
But he noted that details were still limited : "[The announcement] doesn't tell us what level emissions would peak, how high emissions would be when they peak, and whether they will be able to reduce emissions after they peak; or whether they will plateau in 2030 and keep going at a high level."
President Obama is already facing opposition to the deal at home from Republicans who fear his push to slash carbon emissions would see job losses in the coal industry and higher utility prices. China sees the climate challenge differently, he said.
"In China change is mainly driven by broader efforts at what they're calling economic transformation. The sense is that the current model of heavy industry-based and export-based economic growth is reaching its limits. Those limits are pollution-based and energy-based," he said.
"There's a sense that that growth is reaching its end, so they're trying to shift towards clean technology, biotechnology."
But president Xi Jinping, too, might struggle domestically to implement some of the ambitious reforms announced today. "There's a battle going on to shift from the old model to the new model. The big central state owned enterprises, the vast majority of them are based on these heavy industries - power, coal, steel cement," Wang said.
"Both sides have their problems. In the United States, it's a Republican party that doesn't believe in the science of climate change. On the China side, I think the challenge is a fragmented government with a lot of powerful, diffuse interest groups that can thwart drastic change within the country," he said.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 5.54pm AEST
block-time published-time 5.36pm AEST
Greg Hunt welcomes deal
This statement just in from Australia's environment minister, Greg Hunt:
We welcome the announcement by the United States and China to reduce or cap emissions.
The Government is already delivering on Australia's commitment to reduce emissions by 5 per cent on 2000 levels by 2020.
We have always said that we will consider Australia's post-2020 emissions reduction targets in the lead up to next year's Paris conference. This will take into account action taken by our major trading partners.
In the meantime, what's important for Australia is that we have replaced Labor's ineffective and costly carbon tax with a policy that will actually deliver significant emissions reductions.
block-time published-time 5.34pm AEST
The White House has posted the full details of today's deal on its website. Here are the key paragraphs:
Today, the Presidents of the United States and China announced their respective post-2020 actions on climate change, recognizing that these actions are part of the longer range effort to transition to low-carbon economies, mindful of the global temperature goal of 2?. The United States intends to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its emissions by 26%-28% below its 2005 level in 2025 and to make best efforts to reduce its emissions by 28%. China intends to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030 and to make best efforts to peak early and intends to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20% by 2030. Both sides intend to continue to work to increase ambition over time.
The United States and China hope that by announcing these targets now, they can inject momentum into the global climate negotiations and inspire other countries to join in coming forward with ambitious actions as soon as possible, preferably by the first quarter of 2015. The two Presidents resolved to work closely together over the next year to address major impediments to reaching a successful global climate agreement in Paris.
The global scientific community has made clear that human activity is already changing the world's climate system. Accelerating climate change has caused serious impacts. Higher temperatures and extreme weather events are damaging food production, rising sea levels and more damaging storms are putting our coastal cities increasingly at risk and the impacts of climate change are already harming economies around the world, including those of the United States and China. These developments urgently require enhanced actions to tackle the challenge.
At the same time, economic evidence makes increasingly clear that smart action on climate change now can drive innovation, strengthen economic growth and bring broad benefits - from sustainable development to increased energy security, improved public health and a better quality of life. Tackling climate change will also strengthen national and international security.
Read the full statement here
block-time published-time 4.48pm AEST
Garnaut: US-China deal leaves Abbott government "up shit creek"
Today's deal puts intense pressure on Australia to announce a target for post-2020 greenhouse gas reductions, writes my colleague Lenore Taylor.
The US has agreed to cut its emissions by 26-28% of 2005 levels by 2025 - a doubling of the pace of its reductions. If Australia were to make similar cuts by 2025 against its 2000 benchmark, it would need to reduce emissions by between 28% and 31%.
Asked where the deal left Australia's climate change policy, the expert adviser to the former government Professor Ross Garnaut said: "Exactly where it was before the US-China announcement - up shit creek."
Australia has so far said only that it would "consider its post-2020 target as part of the review ... in 2015 on Australia's international targets and settings", taking into account what trading partners promise, and has been strongly resisting discussion of climate change at the G20 on the grounds that the meeting should focus on its central economic agenda.
As Lenore writes, today's deal explodes an often-cited excuse for Australian inaction on climate change: that Chinese emissions are increasing, and so any Australian government action would be futile. China has now pledged that its carbon emissions will begin falling in 2030 - and even sooner, if they can help it.
block-time published-time 4.37pm AEST
How much of China's energy will come from non-fossil fuels, if they stick to their pledge to use 20% renewable energy by 2030? An extraordinary amount, Deborah Nesbitt tweets:
China's promise of 20% non-fossil fuel by 2030 = 800-1000GW more than all coal power in China today and almost all US elec gen. Incredible!
- Deborah Nesbitt (@DeborahNesbitt) November 12, 2014
block-time published-time 4.18pm AEST
The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, has published this op-ed in the New York Times calling today's climate-change deal a "fresh beginning" that could inject new momentum into negotiations on a global carbon emissions compact.
The United States and China are the world's two largest economies, two largest consumers of energy, and two largest emitters of greenhouse gases. Together we account for about 40 percent of the world's emissions.
We need to solve this problem together because neither one of us can solve it alone. Even if the United States somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, it still wouldn't be enough to counteract the carbon pollution coming from China and the rest of the world. Likewise, even if China went down to zero emissions, it wouldn't make enough of a difference if the United States and the rest of the world didn't change direction.
That's the reality of what we're up against. That's why it matters that the world's most consequential relationship has just produced something of great consequence in the fight against climate change.
He goes on:
There is no question that all of us will need to do more to push toward the de-carbonization of the global economy. But in climate diplomacy, as in life, you have to start at the beginning, and t his breakthrough marks a fresh beginning. Two countries regarded for 20 years as the leaders of opposing camps in climate negotiations - have come together to find common ground, determined to make lasting progress on an unprecedented global challenge. Let's ensure that this is the first step toward a world that is more prosperous and more secure.
Read the full story here
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.20pm AEST
block-time published-time 4.14pm AEST
Domestic reaction in the United States is still rolling in, but already Republicans have indicated they will oppose the targets identified in today's deal.
Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell says president Obama has signed an "unrealistic plan" that he will " dump on his successor", and which will ensure higher gas and electricity bills and fewer jobs.
"Our economy can't take the president's ideological war on coal that will increase the squeeze on middle-class families and struggling miners," McConnell said in a statement.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.15pm AEST
block-time published-time 4.07pm AEST
Al Gore: "A major step forward"
Former US Vice-President and climate-change campaigner Al Gore has called China's pledge to began reducing its carbon emissions by 2030 "a signal of groundbreaking progress".
Today's joint announcement by President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping to reduce their nations' carbon emissions is a major step forward in the global effort to solve the climate crisis. Much more will be required - including a global agreement from all nations - but these actions demonstrate a serious commitment by the top two global polluters.
President Xi Jinping's announcement that Chinese emissions will peak around 2030 is a signal of groundbreaking progress from the world's largest polluter. President Obama's commitment to reduce US emissions despite legislative obstruction is a continuation of his strong leadership on the issue.
By demonstrating their willingness to work together, the leaders of the United States and China are opening a new chapter in global climate negotiations. This bold leadership comes at a critical time for our planet when the costs of carbon pollution affect our lives more and more each day.
block-time published-time 4.05pm AEST
Greenpeace: Announcement should be "the floor and not the ceiling" of climate action
Greenpeace East Asia's senior climate and energy campaigner, Li Shuo, has sent these comments:
The two biggest emitters have come to the realisation that they are bound together and have to take actions together. Over the past months, communications between Beijing and Washington on climate change have been carried out in a very extensive manner. This extensive engagement highlights a clear sense of collective responsibility.
However, both sides have yet to reach the goal of a truly game-changing climate relationship. There is a clear expectation of more ambition from these two economies whose emissions trajectories define the global response to climate change. Today's announcements should only be the floor and not the ceiling of enhanced actions.
block-time published-time 4.02pm AEST
My colleague Tania Branigan ( @taniabranigan ), who attended the announcement in Beijing, has sent this dispatch:
Speaking at a joint press conference at the Great Hall of the People, Obama said: "As the world's largest economies and greatest emitters of greenhouse gases we have special responsibility to lead the global effort against climate change. I am proud we can announce a historic agreement. I commend President Xi, his team and the Chinese government for their making to slow, peak and then reverse China's carbon emissions.
He said the US emissions reductions goal was "ambitious but achievable" and would double the pace at which it is reducing carbon emissions.
Obama added: "This is a major milestone in US-China relations and shows what is possible when we work together on an urgent global challenge."
He added that they hoped "to encourage all major economies to be ambitious and all developed and developing countries to work across divides" so that an agreement could be reached at the climate change talks in Paris in December next year.
Let us know your thoughts in the comments below, or tweet me at @safimichael
U.S. President Barack Obama (L) speaks to the media in front of U.S. and Chinese national flags during a joint news conference with China's President Xi Jinping (R) at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing November 12, 2014. Photograph: JASON LEE/REUTERS
block-time published-time 3.57pm AEST
Here's an indication of why today's climate-change deal between the United States and China has truly global ramifications:
Territorial carbon emissions 2013 Photograph: Source: globalcarbonatlas.org
block-time published-time 3.54pm AEST
The chief executive of the World Resources Institute, Andrew Steer, has this to say on the deal between the US and China - who together produce 40% of the world's carbon emissions:
It's a new day to have the leaders of the U.S. and China stand shoulder-to-shoulder and make significant commitments to curb their country's emissions. They have both clearly acknowledged the mounting threat of climate change and the urgency of action. It's heartening to see this level of cooperation, with climate change at the top of the agenda for the world's top emitters.
The U.S. and China should be commended for putting their initial pledges on the table so early. This should inject a jolt of momentum in the lead up to a global climate agreement in Paris.
The U.S. target shows a serious commitment to action and puts the U.S. on a path to reduce its emissions around 80 percent by mid-century. This pledge is grounded in what is achievable under existing U.S. law. However, we should not underestimate the potential of innovation and technology to bring down costs and make it easier to meet--or even exceed--the proposed targets.
China's pledge to increase non-fossil fuel energy and peak emissions around 2030 as early as possible is a major development -and reflects a shift in its position from just a few years ago. But it will be very important to see at what level and what year their emissions peak. Analysis shows that China's emissions should peak before 2030 to limit the worst consequences of climate change.
The director of the WRI's Climate Program, Jennifer Morgan, has also offered her thoughts:
Make no mistake, more needs to be done. The U.S. and China should strive to achieve the upper range of their commitments and go even further in the future. They can raise the bar to take full advantage of the economic opportunities of a low-carbon future. A growing body of evidence shows that climate action can bring economic benefits and new opportunities. International cooperation, around the CERC and other areas, can help unlock even greater levels of ambition.
The U.S. and China should make it a race to the top, catalyzing other countries to announce their targets and build momentum leading up to Paris. Today's announcement is a big step in that direction.
block-time published-time 3.47pm AEST
"A major milestone in the US-China relationship"
Welcome to our live coverage of the announcement of a historic climate-change deal between US President Barack Obama and the president of China, Xi Jinping, just announced in Beijing following nine months of secret talks.
We'll be pulling in reaction and analysis from around the world to this agreement. The joint announcement is still underway, but here are some highlights so far:
China will aim to reach peak carbon dioxide emissions by "around 2030" and strive to achieve the target earlier.
The United States will slash emissions by 26-28% from 2005 levels by 2025 - far beyond the existing target of 17% of 2005 levels by 2020.
China will seek to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in its country's energy mix to 20% by 2030.
Here's more from my colleague Lenore Taylor, including some early reaction:
Tao Wang, climate scholar at the Tsinghua-Carnegie Center for Global Policy in Beijing, said: "It is a very good sign for both countries and injects strong momentum [into negotiations], but the targets are not ambitious enough and there is room for both countries to negotiate an improvement."
China also pledged to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in its energy mix to around 20% by 2030, from less than 10% in 2013, a move that could require 1,000 gigawatts of new nuclear and renewable capacity, but Wang said the figure took China little further than "business as usual".
"That figure isn't high because China aims to reach about 15% by 2020, so it is only a five percentage point increase in 10 years, and given the huge growth in renewables it should be higher," he said.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.04pm AEST
LOAD-DATE: November 12, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
370 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 12, 2014 Wednesday 10:37 AM GMT
Correction Appended
China-US carbon deal: A historic milestone in the global fight against climate change;
After 20 years of tortuous negotiations the agreement struck by the US and China marks the start of a solution to global warming
BYLINE: Damian Carrington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 699 words
Be in no doubt, the agreement struck by the US and China on Wednesday to cut their carbon emissions is historic. It is the biggest step towards achieving a meaningful global deal to fight climate change in 20 years of tortuous negotiations. But also be in no doubt that, while absolutely necessary, it is a long way from being sufficient. As President Barack Obama says, it is a "milestone" - a marker on a longer journey.
Without sharp and rapid cuts in greenhouse gases the world faces "severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts" on people and the natural natural world: floods, droughts and even wars. That conclusion from the world's scientists was signed off on 2 November by 194 nations.
But no progress was going to happen without the world's two biggest polluters, the US and China. The deal they have struck has the potential to end the stand-off that doomed efforts to sign a global deal in Copenhagen in 2009. That coalition of the unwilling is now becoming a coalition of the willing.
The difficulty of tackling climate change cannot be underestimated. Emissions now mean damage later, making it tempting to stall. It is a "global commons" problem - the solution requires all nations to act together, not alone. Moreover, in practical terms, it requires re-engineering the entire world's energy system, which is itself the engine of the global economy. And there's the huge challenge of solving global poverty along the way.
With so much at stake, the negotiations are the among the toughest the world's nations have ever undertaken. But, put bluntly, it's a haggle. There is a limit to how much CO2 can be pumped into the atmosphere before dangerous climate change becomes inevitable. The bartering is over how much of that remaining space each nation deserves to get.
The significance of the China-US deal is that they have now put their first serious offers on the table. In fact they have done so early - the deadline for these bids set by the UN was March 2015. The deadline for a final global deal is December 2015 in Paris. Until now, it was unclear that deal would be done. But the US-China agreement has injected that most precious and rare of commodities into global climate negotiations: momentum.
There is a long way to go yet. The measures announced by the US and China fall well short of what is needed to defeat global warming. The key, as in any haggle, is to keep upping the bids.
Obama said the US pledge to cut carbon by 26-28% by 2025, compared to 2005 levels, would double the pace at which it is reducing its emissions. But it's a smaller cut than that agreed in October by the EU. Its 40% cut by 2030 is compared to a higher baseline of 1990. China has pledged to get 20% of its power from zero-carbon sources by 2030. But is already on track for 15% by 2020.
The signal that these are opening bids is in the qualifying language. China's emissions will reach their peak by 2030 "or earlier". The EU's carbon cut is "at least" 40%.
The US-China deal is also highly significant in the clear signal it sends to the energy industry, who will invest trillions of dollars in the coming decades. China has said clearly for the first time that its huge hunger for coal will soon be sated. The US has said its wants to use less oil and gas, not more. Those are warning signs for today's climate deal refuseniks, coal-rich Australia and oil-sand-rich Canada, and their fossil fuel friends.
Instead, the US-China deal points to clean and renewable energy as the place for the smart money to go. China's pledge of 20% clean energy by 2030 means 800-1,000GW of new wind, solar, nuclear and other zero-emission technology. That addition alone is about the same size as the entire US electricity sector today.
John Kerry, US secretary of state, provided a clear-headed summary of Wednesday's US-China agreement. "There is no question that all of us will need to do more to push toward the de-carbonisation of the global economy. But in climate diplomacy, as in life, you have to start at the beginning, and this breakthrough marks a fresh beginning."
Finally, 25 years after the world was first warned that global warming was a serious problem, we have reached the start of the solution.
LOAD-DATE: November 12, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
CORRECTION-DATE: November 16, 2014
CORRECTION: "The difficulty of tackling climate change cannot be underestimated," we said in an analysis piece about an agreement between China and the US to lower greenhouse-gas emissions ( World's two big polluters finally get serious about climate change, 13 November, page 23). The difficulty cannot be overestimated, we meant to say. As the entry in the Guardian style guide on underestimate says: "Take care that you don't mean overestimate or overstate. We often get this wrong."
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
371 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 12, 2014 Wednesday 10:00 AM GMT
10 top tweeters on sustainable leadership: from Al Gore to Sheryl Sandberg;
As we launch a new leadership hub, we've put together a list of some of the most compelling Twitter users talking about true sustainability leadership
BYLINE: Laura Paddison
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 492 words
To celebrate the launch of Guardian Sustainable Business' leadership hub, we've compiled a list of ten top tweeters who are sharing examples of sustainable leadership in action and are helping drive forward the sustainability agenda.
Of course, there will be plenty more to add to the list so please do share your recommendations in the comments below or tweet us @GuardianSustBiz.
Patagonia
The outdoor clothes company that asks its customers to think twice before buying something new, even if it negatively affects its own bottom line is a true example of sustainable corporate leadership.
Tim Cook - CEO of Apple
The CEO of the tech behemoth has been applauded for using his platform to speak out on climate change, and tell climate sceptic investors to ditch Apple shares if they don't support his pledge to cut the company's greenhouse gas emissions.
Alice Korngold
Author and CEO of Korngold Consulting, she trains and places business executives on NGO boards. She tweets about the power of business leaders to build a better and more sustainable world.
Sheryl Sandberg
Facebook's COO and author of Lean In, Sandberg has done a huge amount to raise the issue of gender diversity within all echelons of companies - but especially at leadership level.
Christiana Figueres
A Costa Rican diplomat and the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, she has been instrumental in pushing world and business leaders to act on climate change.
Al Gore
The former US vice president, author, environmental activist and a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change, tweets about the power of leadership for a sustainable future.
Kumi Naidoo
The head of Greenpeace International speaks out strongly against corporate misbehaviour but is also prepared to work with companies to drive sustainable leadership.
The University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership
The organisation works to build the capacity of leaders to address global challenges.
David Grayson
The Cranfield professor of corporate responsibility and director of the Doughty Centre for Corporate Responsibility advises on business, society and entrepreneurialism.
Pavan Sukhdev
The founder-CEO of Grist Advisory, author of Corporation 2020, environmental economist and special adviser to the United Nations environment programme's green economy initiative and study leader for Teeb.
The leadership hub is funded by Xyntéo . All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled advertisement feature. Find out more here .
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: November 12, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
372 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 12, 2014 Wednesday 7:40 AM GMT
Pressure on Australia to slash emissions - but no cost-effective policy to get us there;
We have been shouting so loudly about how we had to avoid getting 'ahead of the world' that we seemed not to notice we were being left behind
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 544 words
Ross Garnaut is usually professorial in his language. But the academic who wrote two voluminous climate policy reports for the former government used front-bar vernacular when asked where Wednesday's historic climate announcement by China and the US has left Australia. "Up shit creek," he said.
In the US, China and the EU the ambition of climate policy is growing.
In Australia it just keeps getting smaller. We have been shouting so long and so loudly about how we had to avoid getting "ahead of the world", hyperventilating about how a relatively modest carbon tax would end economic life as we knew it (even after it was introduced and it didn't) that we seemed not to notice we were in fact being left behind.
Having failed to get a cap and trade scheme through congress, President Barack Obama unveiled tough regulations for the power sector. And then, standing side by side with China's President Xi Jinping, he has pledged cuts of 26%-28% below 2005 levels by 2025 - the next step beyond the existing promise to cut emissions 17% by 2020.
China had previously promised to cut the emissions intensity of its economy - emissions per unit of GDP - a measure that allowed absolute emissions to continue to rise. At the same press conference it pledged its emissions would peak in 2030 and then decline.
And in Australia? Well before the election the Coalition promised, in writing, to reduce emissions by 2020 by between 5% and 25%. But after the election that became 5% - and absolutely no more. Anything longer term we haven't really got around to discussing.
The carbon tax has gone and government's efforts to reduce the renewable energy target have stalled all investment in clean energy. The Coalition's Direct Action policy is in place, but not the safeguards that might have slowed emissions growth across the economy.
Obama argues that "a low-carbon, clean-energy economy can be an engine of growth for decades to come" and the joint US-Chinese statement says "economic evidence makes increasingly clear that smart action on climate change now can drive innovation, strengthen economic growth and bring broad benefits".
Tony Abbott still insists "coal is good for humanity" and its use should go "up and up and up in the years and decades to come" - but then cuts spending on the carbon capture and storage technology that, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is the only way coal will be able to be used into the future.
It is, as the US is demonstrating, possible to reduce emissions by means other than a carbon price. Tough regulations or carefully targeted and rigorously assessed government incentives can also do the job.
But Direct Action, as it stands, is unlikely to be a viable alternative and its costs will certainly become prohibitive as Australia is required to reduce its emissions further - as Malcolm Turnbull kept telling us and has been repeatedly borne out by modelling (done by third parties because the government hasn't done any, preferring as Abbott said during the election campaign, to just "have a crack").
And so we find ourselves under extreme pressure to make much deeper cuts to emissions without any cost-effective policy to get us there. Not just up shit creek, but without a paddle.
LOAD-DATE: November 12, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
373 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 12, 2014 Wednesday 7:24 AM GMT
United States and China reach landmark carbon emissions deal - live;
The world's two largest economies strike historic, ambitious deal to cap carbon emissions and increase use of renewable energy
BYLINE: Michael Safi in Sydney and Matthew Weaver in London
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 2963 words
block-time published-time 6.24pm AEST
Before we get too excited about the deal, our Beijing correspondent, Jonathan Kaiman, adds some words of caution on the scale of China's commitment. He points out that for years researchers have projected that China's c02 emissions would peak around 2030.
He adds:
China's environmental authorities are notoriously opaque, making the true extent of its carbon emissions - and its progress in mitigating them - difficult to assess. In June, scientists from China, Britain and the US reviewed data from China's National Bureau of Statistics and found that the country's total emissions from 1997 to 2010 may be 20% (1.4bn tonnes) higher than reported.
An old man exercises at a smog-shrouded square in Tangshan, China. Photograph: Xinhua /Landov / Barcroft Media/Xinhua /Landov / Barcroft Media
block-time published-time 5.49pm AEST
I've just been speaking with Alexander Wang, a law professor at UCLA and an expert in the issues surrounding China's carbon emissions.
Wang said China's announcement that its carbon emissions would peak by 2030 was "a very big deal".
"They've never been willing to say a date when they would peak, so it's a big shift," he said.
But he noted that details were still limited : "[The announcement] doesn't tell us what level emissions would peak, how high emissions would be when they peak, and whether they will be able to reduce emissions after they peak; or whether they will plateau in 2030 and keep going at a high level."
President Obama is already facing opposition to the deal at home from Republicans who fear his push to slash carbon emissions would see job losses in the coal industry and higher utility prices. China sees the climate challenge differently, he said.
"In China change is mainly driven by broader efforts at what they're calling economic transformation. The sense is that the current model of heavy industry-based and export-based economic growth is reaching its limits. Those limits are pollution-based and energy-based," he said.
"There's a sense that that growth is reaching its end, so they're trying to shift towards clean technology, biotechnology."
But president Xi Jinping, too, might struggle domestically to implement some of the ambitious reforms announced today. "There's a battle going on to shift from the old model to the new model. The big central state owned enterprises, the vast majority of them are based on these heavy industries - power, coal, steel cement," Wang said.
"Both sides have their problems. In the United States, it's a Republican party that doesn't believe in the science of climate change. On the China side, I think the challenge is a fragmented government with a lot of powerful, diffuse interest groups that can thwart drastic change within the country," he said.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 5.54pm AEST
block-time published-time 5.36pm AEST
Greg Hunt welcomes deal
This statement just in from Australia's environment minister, Greg Hunt:
We welcome the announcement by the United States and China to reduce or cap emissions.
The Government is already delivering on Australia's commitment to reduce emissions by 5 per cent on 2000 levels by 2020.
We have always said that we will consider Australia's post-2020 emissions reduction targets in the lead up to next year's Paris conference. This will take into account action taken by our major trading partners.
In the meantime, what's important for Australia is that we have replaced Labor's ineffective and costly carbon tax with a policy that will actually deliver significant emissions reductions.
block-time published-time 5.34pm AEST
The White House has posted the full details of today's deal on its website. Here are the key paragraphs:
Today, the Presidents of the United States and China announced their respective post-2020 actions on climate change, recognizing that these actions are part of the longer range effort to transition to low-carbon economies, mindful of the global temperature goal of 2?. The United States intends to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its emissions by 26%-28% below its 2005 level in 2025 and to make best efforts to reduce its emissions by 28%. China intends to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030 and to make best efforts to peak early and intends to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20% by 2030. Both sides intend to continue to work to increase ambition over time.
The United States and China hope that by announcing these targets now, they can inject momentum into the global climate negotiations and inspire other countries to join in coming forward with ambitious actions as soon as possible, preferably by the first quarter of 2015. The two Presidents resolved to work closely together over the next year to address major impediments to reaching a successful global climate agreement in Paris.
The global scientific community has made clear that human activity is already changing the world's climate system. Accelerating climate change has caused serious impacts. Higher temperatures and extreme weather events are damaging food production, rising sea levels and more damaging storms are putting our coastal cities increasingly at risk and the impacts of climate change are already harming economies around the world, including those of the United States and China. These developments urgently require enhanced actions to tackle the challenge.
At the same time, economic evidence makes increasingly clear that smart action on climate change now can drive innovation, strengthen economic growth and bring broad benefits - from sustainable development to increased energy security, improved public health and a better quality of life. Tackling climate change will also strengthen national and international security.
Read the full statement here
block-time published-time 4.48pm AEST
Garnaut: US-China deal leaves Abbott government "up shit creek"
Today's deal puts intense pressure on Australia to announce a target for post-2020 greenhouse gas reductions, writes my colleague Lenore Taylor.
The US has agreed to cut its emissions by 26-28% of 2005 levels by 2025 - a doubling of the pace of its reductions. If Australia were to make similar cuts by 2025 against its 2000 benchmark, it would need to reduce emissions by between 28% and 31%.
Asked where the deal left Australia's climate change policy, the expert adviser to the former government Professor Ross Garnaut said: "Exactly where it was before the US-China announcement - up shit creek."
Australia has so far said only that it would "consider its post-2020 target as part of the review ... in 2015 on Australia's international targets and settings", taking into account what trading partners promise, and has been strongly resisting discussion of climate change at the G20 on the grounds that the meeting should focus on its central economic agenda.
As Lenore writes, today's deal explodes an often-cited excuse for Australian inaction on climate change: that Chinese emissions are increasing, and so any Australian government action would be futile. China has now pledged that its carbon emissions will begin falling in 2030 - and even sooner, if they can help it.
block-time published-time 4.37pm AEST
How much of China's energy will come from non-fossil fuels, if they stick to their pledge to use 20% renewable energy by 2030? An extraordinary amount, Deborah Nesbitt tweets:
China's promise of 20% non-fossil fuel by 2030 = 800-1000GW more than all coal power in China today and almost all US elec gen. Incredible!
- Deborah Nesbitt (@DeborahNesbitt) November 12, 2014
block-time published-time 4.18pm AEST
The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, has published this op-ed in the New York Times calling today's climate-change deal a "fresh beginning" that could inject new momentum into negotiations on a global carbon emissions compact.
The United States and China are the world's two largest economies, two largest consumers of energy, and two largest emitters of greenhouse gases. Together we account for about 40 percent of the world's emissions.
We need to solve this problem together because neither one of us can solve it alone. Even if the United States somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, it still wouldn't be enough to counteract the carbon pollution coming from China and the rest of the world. Likewise, even if China went down to zero emissions, it wouldn't make enough of a difference if the United States and the rest of the world didn't change direction.
That's the reality of what we're up against. That's why it matters that the world's most consequential relationship has just produced something of great consequence in the fight against climate change.
He goes on:
There is no question that all of us will need to do more to push toward the de-carbonization of the global economy. But in climate diplomacy, as in life, you have to start at the beginning, and t his breakthrough marks a fresh beginning. Two countries regarded for 20 years as the leaders of opposing camps in climate negotiations - have come together to find common ground, determined to make lasting progress on an unprecedented global challenge. Let's ensure that this is the first step toward a world that is more prosperous and more secure.
Read the full story here
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.20pm AEST
block-time published-time 4.14pm AEST
Domestic reaction in the United States is still rolling in, but already Republicans have indicated they will oppose the targets identified in today's deal.
Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell says president Obama has signed an "unrealistic plan" that he will " dump on his successor", and which will ensure higher gas and electricity bills and fewer jobs.
"Our economy can't take the president's ideological war on coal that will increase the squeeze on middle-class families and struggling miners," McConnell said in a statement.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.15pm AEST
block-time published-time 4.07pm AEST
Al Gore: "A major step forward"
Former US Vice-President and climate-change campaigner Al Gore has called China's pledge to began reducing its carbon emissions by 2030 "a signal of groundbreaking progress".
Today's joint announcement by President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping to reduce their nations' carbon emissions is a major step forward in the global effort to solve the climate crisis. Much more will be required - including a global agreement from all nations - but these actions demonstrate a serious commitment by the top two global polluters.
President Xi Jinping's announcement that Chinese emissions will peak around 2030 is a signal of groundbreaking progress from the world's largest polluter. President Obama's commitment to reduce US emissions despite legislative obstruction is a continuation of his strong leadership on the issue.
By demonstrating their willingness to work together, the leaders of the United States and China are opening a new chapter in global climate negotiations. This bold leadership comes at a critical time for our planet when the costs of carbon pollution affect our lives more and more each day.
block-time published-time 4.05pm AEST
Greenpeace: Announcement should be "the floor and not the ceiling" of climate action
Greenpeace East Asia's senior climate and energy campaigner, Li Shuo, has sent these comments:
The two biggest emitters have come to the realisation that they are bound together and have to take actions together. Over the past months, communications between Beijing and Washington on climate change have been carried out in a very extensive manner. This extensive engagement highlights a clear sense of collective responsibility.
However, both sides have yet to reach the goal of a truly game-changing climate relationship. There is a clear expectation of more ambition from these two economies whose emissions trajectories define the global response to climate change. Today's announcements should only be the floor and not the ceiling of enhanced actions.
block-time published-time 4.02pm AEST
My colleague Tania Branigan ( @taniabranigan ), who attended the announcement in Beijing, has sent this dispatch:
Speaking at a joint press conference at the Great Hall of the People, Obama said: "As the world's largest economies and greatest emitters of greenhouse gases we have special responsibility to lead the global effort against climate change. I am proud we can announce a historic agreement. I commend President Xi, his team and the Chinese government for their making to slow, peak and then reverse China's carbon emissions.
He said the US emissions reductions goal was "ambitious but achievable" and would double the pace at which it is reducing carbon emissions.
Obama added: "This is a major milestone in US-China relations and shows what is possible when we work together on an urgent global challenge."
He added that they hoped "to encourage all major economies to be ambitious and all developed and developing countries to work across divides" so that an agreement could be reached at the climate change talks in Paris in December next year.
Let us know your thoughts in the comments below, or tweet me at @safimichael
U.S. President Barack Obama (L) speaks to the media in front of U.S. and Chinese national flags during a joint news conference with China's President Xi Jinping (R) at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing November 12, 2014. Photograph: JASON LEE/REUTERS
block-time published-time 3.57pm AEST
Here's an indication of why today's climate-change deal between the United States and China has truly global ramifications:
Territorial carbon emissions 2013 Photograph: Source: globalcarbonatlas.org
block-time published-time 3.54pm AEST
The chief executive of the World Resources Institute, Andrew Steer, has this to say on the deal between the US and China - who together produce 40% of the world's carbon emissions:
It's a new day to have the leaders of the U.S. and China stand shoulder-to-shoulder and make significant commitments to curb their country's emissions. They have both clearly acknowledged the mounting threat of climate change and the urgency of action. It's heartening to see this level of cooperation, with climate change at the top of the agenda for the world's top emitters.
The U.S. and China should be commended for putting their initial pledges on the table so early. This should inject a jolt of momentum in the lead up to a global climate agreement in Paris.
The U.S. target shows a serious commitment to action and puts the U.S. on a path to reduce its emissions around 80 percent by mid-century. This pledge is grounded in what is achievable under existing U.S. law. However, we should not underestimate the potential of innovation and technology to bring down costs and make it easier to meet--or even exceed--the proposed targets.
China's pledge to increase non-fossil fuel energy and peak emissions around 2030 as early as possible is a major development -and reflects a shift in its position from just a few years ago. But it will be very important to see at what level and what year their emissions peak. Analysis shows that China's emissions should peak before 2030 to limit the worst consequences of climate change.
The director of the WRI's Climate Program, Jennifer Morgan, has also offered her thoughts:
Make no mistake, more needs to be done. The U.S. and China should strive to achieve the upper range of their commitments and go even further in the future. They can raise the bar to take full advantage of the economic opportunities of a low-carbon future. A growing body of evidence shows that climate action can bring economic benefits and new opportunities. International cooperation, around the CERC and other areas, can help unlock even greater levels of ambition.
The U.S. and China should make it a race to the top, catalyzing other countries to announce their targets and build momentum leading up to Paris. Today's announcement is a big step in that direction.
block-time published-time 3.47pm AEST
"A major milestone in the US-China relationship"
Welcome to our live coverage of the announcement of a historic climate-change deal between US President Barack Obama and the president of China, Xi Jinping, just announced in Beijing following nine months of secret talks.
We'll be pulling in reaction and analysis from around the world to this agreement. The joint announcement is still underway, but here are some highlights so far:
China will aim to reach peak carbon dioxide emissions by "around 2030" and strive to achieve the target earlier.
The United States will slash emissions by 26-28% from 2005 levels by 2025 - far beyond the existing target of 17% of 2005 levels by 2020.
China will seek to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in its country's energy mix to 20% by 2030.
Here's more from my colleague Lenore Taylor, including some early reaction:
Tao Wang, climate scholar at the Tsinghua-Carnegie Center for Global Policy in Beijing, said: "It is a very good sign for both countries and injects strong momentum [into negotiations], but the targets are not ambitious enough and there is room for both countries to negotiate an improvement."
China also pledged to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in its energy mix to around 20% by 2030, from less than 10% in 2013, a move that could require 1,000 gigawatts of new nuclear and renewable capacity, but Wang said the figure took China little further than "business as usual".
"That figure isn't high because China aims to reach about 15% by 2020, so it is only a five percentage point increase in 10 years, and given the huge growth in renewables it should be higher," he said.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.04pm AEST
LOAD-DATE: November 12, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
374 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 12, 2014 Wednesday 6:00 AM GMT
Celebrating solutions for climate change;
Youth films and actionable solutions to climate change celebrated at Sustainia Awards Ceremony
BYLINE: Max Thabiso Edkins
SECTION: CONNECT4CLIMATE PARTNER ZONE
LENGTH: 795 words
On her last day as European commissioner for Climate Action, Connie Hedergaard delivered a climate movement-making speech at the Sustainia Awards Ceremony emphasising: "A stands for action, action, action." The science is clear, the economic arguments have been made, and now we need to shift our behavioural and leadership gears up for climate action.
The Sustainia Awards Ceremony in Copenhagen on 30 October 2014 was a true celebration of enterprises taking on climate change. Ten finalists from the Sustainia100 report were presented, with Fairphone winning the community award and Wecyclers, a recycling scheme in Nigeria, winning top honors. The event emphasised: "A sustainable world is possible - #100solutions for #COP21."
In support of climate solutions, Connect4Climate was invited to announce the winning entries of the Action4Climate documentary challenge at the Sustainia Awards Ceremony. I was honored to deliver the global youth message for climate action, as depicted in the Action4Climate films, to an audience of more than a thousand people.
Quoting World Bank Group president Jim Kim's message that "we will never end poverty if we don't tackle climate change", I went on to highlight that the poor are already being affected the most, yet we know that the solutions are at hand. All we now need is a behavioral and leadership shift for climate action. The World Bank Group's Climate-Smart Development report shows that we can promote prosperity, end poverty and tackle climate change all at the same time.
The solutions showcased are examples of businesses and individuals showing leadership in addressing climate change and shifting development to a low-carbon future. Three days later, in the same city, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published the most important assessment of global warming yet. The UN's IPCC report, the work of thousands of scientists, emphasises that climate action is needed now.
It is the first IPCC report since 2007 to bring together all aspects of tackling climate change. For the first time it states that global poverty can only be reduced by halting global warming, that it is economically affordable, and that carbon emissions will ultimately have to fall to zero. The report emphasises that by 2050 the world's electricity can and must be produced from low-carbon sources. And so the journey to zero carbon must accelerate.
Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPPC, said: "Tremendous strides are being made in alternative sources of clean energy. There is much we can do to use energy more efficiently. Reducing and ultimately eliminating deforestation provides additional avenues for action."
We seem to be at a crucial point where tackling climate change is possible. Globally people took to the streets for the People's Climate March and demanded climate action. The UN Climate Summit showed remarkable progress, especially with the announcement of more than a thousand businesses supporting a price on carbon.
This was a message retold at the Sustainia Awards Ceremony by Georg Kell, executive director of the UN Global Compact, who said: "It is possible to make the strong case for carbon pricing." I discussed carbon pricing and the role of business and investors with Kell and other thought leaders at the Solutions Alliance workshop a day before the awards ceremony, where we concluded that the price for carbon would have to be high enough to keep coal in the ground and shift investments to carbon neutral energy sources.
Youth are the main advocates for climate action. Besides having taken to the streets, they are the entrepreneurs who are advancing climate solutions. Sustainia Award winner Bukky Adebayo is a prime example of young leaders embodying the notion of Africa Rising with Wecyclers. To advance climate action, it will be paramount to include the young solution seekers of the world.
The Action4Climate filmmakers, who sent in their films from all corners of the world, have made it exceptionally clear that now is the time to act. We screened the Action4Climate grand prize winner The Trail of a Tale by Gonçalo Tocha. The film's message that "there is always a time in history when words become actions" received a resounding response.
I'm left feeling that we are standing on the edge of a great shift towards a world that finally gets serious about climate change. Businesses, investors, individuals are all taking a stand and helping advance the climate solutions necessary to prevent our world from experiencing dangerous climate change. We are set to take: "Action, action, action."
See all winning films at www.action4climate.org. Join the discussion: #Action4Climate
Content managed and produced by Connect4climate
LOAD-DATE: November 12, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
375 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 12, 2014 Wednesday 5:30 AM GMT
US-China emissions deal puts extreme pressure on Australia to do more;
To match the scale of cuts announced by US, Australia would have to reduce emissions by about 30% on 2000 levels by 2025
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 718 words
Australia is under intense pressure to announce a target for post-2020 greenhouse gas reductions after the shock announcement from US president Barack Obama and Chinese premier Xi Jinping of new national climate change goals.
The US has agreed to cut its emissions by 26-28% of 2005 levels by 2025 - a doubling of the pace of its reductions. If Australia were to make similar cuts by 2025 against its 2000 benchmark, it would need to reduce emissions by between 28% and 31%.
Asked where the deal left Australia's climate change policy, the expert adviser to the former government Professor Ross Garnaut said: "Exactly where it was before the US-China announcement - up shit creek."
Australia has so far said only that it would "consider its post-2020 target as part of the review ... in 2015 on Australia's international targets and settings", taking into account what trading partners promise, and has been strongly resisting discussion of climate change at the G20 on the grounds that the meeting should focus on its central economic agenda.
It has not announced how it will determine its post-2020 target, nor when it will make it public.
China, the world's largest greenhouse emitter, has now agreed its emissions will peak by 2030 at the latest, and then begin to decline. China had previously only ever agreed to reduce the rate at which its greenhouse emissions were increasing. It has also agreed that 20% of China's energy should come from zero emissions sources by 2030.
Australian politicians have often cited increasing emissions from China as evidence that it is futile for Australia to take stronger action on climate change.
As reported by Guardian Australia, Australia has reluctantly conceded the final G20 communique should include climate change, but has been resisting a last-ditch push by the US, France and other European countries for the leaders gathering in Brisbane this weekend to endorse contributions to the Green Climate Fund - as they did last year in St Petersburg.
The Green Climate Fund aims to help poorer countries cut their emissions and prepare for the impact of climate change, and, along with individual national emission reduction pledges, is seen as critical to securing developing-nation support for a successful deal in Paris.
It is understood the G20 communique's references to climate change have been expanded as negotiators finalise the text in the lead-up to the weekend meeting.
A spokesman for the Climate Institute think tank, Erwin Jackson, said Australia was "looking like it has been caught with its pants down on climate change action".
The Labor leader, Bill Shorten, said that "while the United States and China show global leadership, Tony Abbott is sticking his head in the sand".
"At the G20 this week, Australia will hold the embarrassing title of being the only nation going backwards on climate change," he said.
The Climate Institute has calculated Australia should be looking at a 40% reduction by 2025.
The government's Direct Action climate policy to reduce emissions with $2.5bn worth of competitive government grants to businesses and organisations is intended to meet the target of cutting Australia's greenhouse gases by 5% by 2020.
Europe has already indicated a 2030 target of at least 40% below 1990 levels.
The calculation of a 40% cut by 2030 is broadly in line with the findings of the independent Climate Change Authority, which recommended Australia reduce emissions by 40% to 60% below 2000 levels in 2030.
Garnaut said the government should allow the authority, with its excellent professional staff, to provide recommendations on Australia's post-2020 target, but it would need to be "comparable with the US for Australia to be seen to be doing its fair share".
Greens leader Christine Milne said Tony Abbott was "so busy unwinding Australia's climate policies that he failed to notice the global economy is changing around him. He is risking billions of dollars in investment and thousands of jobs. Tony Abbott is engaging in intergenerational theft while the rest of the world moves to protect future generations and the planet.
"Until the Abbott government took control, Australia was a world leader in climate policy with an emissions trading scheme that was considered template legislation for other nations," she said.
LOAD-DATE: November 12, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
376 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 12, 2014 Wednesday
The New York Times on the Web
China, America and Our Warming Planet
BYLINE: By JOHN KERRY
SECTION: Section ; Column 0; OpEd; OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR; Pg.
LENGTH: 878 words
BEIJING -- The United States and China are the world's two largest economies, two largest consumers of energy, and two largest emitters of greenhouse gases. Together we account for about 40 percent of the world's emissions.
We need to solve this problem together because neither one of us can solve it alone. Even if the United States somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, it still wouldn't be enough to counteract the carbon pollution coming from China and the rest of the world. Likewise, even if China went down to zero emissions, it wouldn't make enough of a difference if the United States and the rest of the world didn't change direction.
That's the reality of what we're up against. That's why it matters that the world's most consequential relationship has just produced something of great consequence in the fight against climate change.
Today, President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping are jointly announcing targets to reduce carbon emissions in the post-2020 period. By doing this -- together, and well before the deadline established by the international community -- we are encouraging other countries to put forward their own ambitious emissions reduction targets soon and to overcome traditional divisions so we can conclude a strong global climate agreement in 2015.
Our announcement can inject momentum into the global climate negotiations, which resume in less than three weeks in Lima, Peru, and culminate next year in Paris. The commitment of both presidents to take ambitious action in our own countries, and work closely to remove obstacles on the road to Paris, sends an important signal that we must get this agreement done, that we can get it done, and that we will get it done.
This is also a milestone in the United States-China relationship, the outcome of a concerted effort that began last year in Beijing, when State Councilor Yang Jiechi and I started the United States-China Climate Change Working Group. It was an effort inspired not just by our shared concern about the impact of climate change, but by our belief that the world's largest economies, energy consumers and carbon emitters have a responsibility to lead.
The targets themselves are also important. Ambitious action by our countries together is the foundation to build the low-carbon global economy needed to combat climate change. The United States intends to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 -- a target that is both ambitious and feasible. It roughly doubles the pace of carbon reductions in the period from 2020 to 2025 as compared to the period from 2005 to 2020. It puts us on a path to transform our economy, with emissions reductions on the order of 80 percent by 2050. It is grounded in an extensive analysis of the potential to reduce emissions in all sectors of our economy, with significant added benefits for health, clean air, and energy security.
Our target builds on the ambitious goal President Obama set in 2009 to cut emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. We are on track to meet that goal, while creating jobs and growing the economy, with the help of a burgeoning clean energy sector. Since the president took office, wind energy production has tripled and solar energy has increased by a factor of ten. This summer, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed the first carbon pollution standards for existing power plants, which account for a third of United States carbon pollution.
The Chinese targets also represent a major advance. For the first time China is announcing a peak year for its carbon emissions -- around 2030 -- along with a commitment to try to reach the peak earlier. That matters because over the past 15 years, China has accounted for roughly 60 percent of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions world-wide. We are confident that China can and will reach peak emissions before 2030, in light of President Xi's commitments to restructure the economy, dramatically reduce air pollution and stimulate an energy revolution.
China is also announcing today that it would expand the share of total energy consumption coming from zero-emission sources (renewable and nuclear energy) to around 20 percent by 2030, sending a powerful signal to investors and energy markets around the world and helping accelerate the global transition to clean-energy economies. To meet its goal, China will need to deploy an additional 800 to 1,000 gigawatts of nuclear, wind, solar and other renewable generation capacity by 2030 -- an enormous amount, about the same as all the coal-fired power plants in China today, and nearly as much as the total electricity generation capacity of the United States.
There is no question that all of us will need to do more to push toward the de-carbonization of the global economy. But in climate diplomacy, as in life, you have to start at the beginning, and this breakthrough marks a fresh beginning. Two countries regarded for 20 years as the leaders of opposing camps in climate negotiations -- have come together to find common ground, determined to make lasting progress on an unprecedented global challenge. Let's ensure that this is the first step toward a world that is more prosperous and more secure.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/opinion/john-kerry-our-historic-agreement-with-china-on-climate-change.html
LOAD-DATE: November 12, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Op-Ed
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
377 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 12, 2014 Wednesday
Late Edition - Final
Wobbling on Climate Change
BYLINE: By PIERS J. SELLERS.
Piers J. Sellers is the acting director of earth science at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR; Pg. 27
LENGTH: 826 words
GREENBELT, Md. -- I'M a climate scientist and a former astronaut. Not surprisingly, I have a deep respect for well-tested theories and facts. In the climate debate, these things have a way of getting blurred in political discussions.
In September, John P. Holdren, the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, was testifying to a Congressional committee about climate change. Representative Steve Stockman, a Republican from Texas, recounted a visit he had made to NASA, where he asked what had ended the ice age:
''And the lead scientist at NASA said this -- he said that what ended the ice age was global wobbling. That's what I was told. This is a lead scientist down in Maryland; you're welcome to go down there and ask him the same thing.
''So, and my second question, which I thought it was an intuitive question that should be followed up -- is the wobbling of the earth included in any of your modelings? And the answer was no...
''How can you take an element which you give the credit for the collapse of global freezing and into global warming but leave it out of your models?''
That ''lead scientist at NASA'' was me. In July, Mr. Stockman spent a couple of hours at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center listening to presentations about earth science and climate change. The subject of ice ages came up. Mr. Stockman asked, ''How can your models predict the climate when no one can tell me what causes the ice ages?''
I responded that, actually, the science community understood very well what takes the earth into and out of ice ages. A Serbian mathematician, Milutin Milankovitch, worked out the theory during the early years of the 20th century. He calculated by hand that variations in the earth's tilt and the shape of its orbit around the sun start and end ice ages. I said that you could think of ice ages as resulting from wobbles in the earth's tilt and orbit.
The time scales involved are on the order of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. I explained that this science has been well tested against the fossil record and is broadly accepted. I added that we don't normally include these factors in 100-year climate projections because the effects are too tiny to be important on such a short time-scale.
And that, I thought, was that.
So I was bit surprised to read the exchange between Dr. Holdren and Representative Stockman, which suggested that at best we couldn't explain the science and at worst we scientists are clueless about ice ages.
We aren't. Nor are we clueless about what is happening to the climate, thanks in part to a small fleet of satellites that fly above our heads, measuring the pulse of the earth. Without them we would have no useful weather forecasts beyond a couple of days.
These satellite data are fed into computer models that use the laws of motion -- Sir Isaac Newton's theories -- to figure out where the world's air currents will flow, where clouds will form and rain will fall. And -- voilà -- you can plan your weekend, an airline can plan a flight and a city can prepare for a hurricane.
Satellites also keep track of other important variables: polar ice, sea level rise, changes in vegetation, ocean currents, sea surface temperature and ocean salinity (that's right -- you can accurately measure salinity from space), cloudiness and so on.
These data are crucial for assessing and understanding changes in the earth system and determining whether they are natural or connected to human activities. They are also used to challenge and correct climate models, which are mostly based on the same theories used in weather forecast models.
This whole system of observation, theory and prediction is tested daily in forecast models and almost continuously in climate models. So, if you have no faith in the predictive capability of climate models, you should also discard your faith in weather forecasts and any other predictions based on Newtonian mechanics.
The earth has warmed nearly 0.8 degrees Celsius over the last century and we are confident that the biggest factor in this increase is the release of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning. It is almost certain that we will see a rise of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) before 2100, and a three-degree rise (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) or higher is a possibility. The impacts over such a short period would be huge. The longer we put off corrective action, the more disruptive the outcome is likely to be.
It is my pleasure and duty as a scientist and civil servant to discuss the challenge of climate change with elected officials. My colleagues and I do our best to transmit what we know and what we think is likely to happen.
The facts and accepted theories are fundamental to understanding climate change, and they are too important to get wrong or trivialize. Some difficult decisions lie ahead for us humans. We should debate our options armed with the best information and ideas that science can provide.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/opinion/wobbling-on-climate-change.html
LOAD-DATE: November 12, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: DRAWING (DRAWING BY MATT PANUSKA)
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Op-Ed
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
378 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Sinosphere)
November 12, 2014 Wednesday
Politicians and Climate Experts React to U.S.-China Emissions Deal
BYLINE: AUSTIN RAMZY
SECTION: WORLD; asia
LENGTH: 1034 words
HIGHLIGHT: Reactions from the former United States vice president, politicians and climate experts on pledges by China and America to cut carbon emissions.
President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China pledged on Wednesday to control their countries' carbon emissions, in what American officials described as a breakthrough in the effort to combat climate change.
Mr. Obama announced that by 2025, the United States would lower emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels, "double the pace of reduction it targeted for the period from 2005 to 2020," Mark Landler reports. Mr. Xi pledged that China would stop its carbon emissions from growing by or before 2030, in part by increasing the proportion of its total energy production that comes from cleaner sources to 20 percent.
The announcement raises questions about whether the two sides can meet their commitments, how strongly the United States Congress will resist Mr. Obama's pledges and just how significant a breakthrough the deal represents. Politicians, environmentalists and climate experts weigh in:
Al Gore, former vice president of the United States:
Today's joint announcement by President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping to reduce their nations' carbon emissions is a major step forward in the global effort to solve the climate crisis. Much more will be required - including a global agreement from all nations - but these actions demonstrate a serious commitment by the top two global polluters.
President Xi Jinping's announcement that Chinese emissions will peak around 2030 is a signal of groundbreaking progress from the world's largest polluter. President Obama's commitment to reduce U.S. emissions despite legislative obstruction is a continuation of his strong leadership on the issue.
By demonstrating their willingness to work together, the leaders of the United States and China are opening a new chapter in global climate negotiations. This bold leadership comes at a critical time for our planet when the costs of carbon pollution affect our lives more and more each day.
Mitch McConnell, Republican leader of the United States Senate, in comments reported by McClatchy:
Our economy can't take the president's ideological war on coal that will increase the squeeze on middle-class families and struggling miners. This unrealistic plan, that the president would dump on his successor, would ensure higher utility rates and far fewer jobs.
Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California:
Now there is no longer an excuse for Congress to block action on climate change. The biggest carbon polluter on our planet, China, has agreed to cut back on dangerous emissions, and now we should make sure all countries do their part because this is a threat to the people that we all represent.
Joanna Lewis, associate professor of science, technology and international affairs at Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service:
The announcements from the United States and China are aggressive and significant - and the timing couldn't be better. The joint announcement will likely build momentum ahead of the G-20 meetings and the next round of the U.N. climate negotiations in Lima in December, and hopefully lead to similar announcements by other countries.
China's announcement that its emissions will peak by 2030 or earlier is on the earlier side of when recent modeling studies out of both the U.S. and China have demonstrated that an emissions peak could occur. Such a peak year is dependent on coal use also peaking likely several years in advance of any CO2 peak. While this will be difficult for China to achieve, all signs point to declining coal use, driven in part by pressures to control air pollution. Questions remain, however, about at what level China's emissions will actually peak. A higher peak emissions number likely means a higher emission burden and a more difficult task to prevent dangerous climate impacts.
China's new goal of 20 percent of primary energy coming from nonfossil sources by 2030 is an important piece of understanding how China will achieve an emissions peak, and is a sign of continued expansion of renewable energy, along with hydro and nuclear.
Li Shuo, senior climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace East Asia:
The two biggest emitters have come to the realization that they are bound together and have to take actions together. Over the past months, communications between Beijing and Washington on climate change have been carried out in a very extensive manner. This extensive engagement highlights a clear sense of collective responsibility.
However, both sides have yet to reach the goal of a truly game-changing climate relationship. There is a clear expectation of more ambition from these two economies whose emissions trajectories define the global response to climate change. Today's announcements should only be the floor and not the ceiling of enhanced actions.
Andrew Steer, president and chief executive of World Resources Institute:
It's a new day to have the leaders of the U.S. and China stand shoulder-to-shoulder and make significant commitments to curb their country's emissions. They have both clearly acknowledged the mounting threat of climate change and the urgency of action. It's heartening to see this level of cooperation, with climate change at the top of the agenda for the world's top emitters.
The U.S. and China should be commended for putting their initial pledges on the table so early. This should inject a jolt of momentum in the lead up to a global climate agreement in Paris.
The U.S. target shows a serious commitment to action and puts the U.S. on a path to reduce its emissions around 80 percent by mid-century. This pledge is grounded in what is achievable under existing U.S. law. However, we should not underestimate the potential of innovation and technology to bring down costs and make it easier to meet - or even exceed - the proposed targets.
China's pledge to increase non-fossil fuel energy and peak emissions around 2030 as early as possible is a major development - and reflects a shift in its position from just a few years ago. But it will be very important to see at what level and what year their emissions peak. Analysis shows that China's emissions should peak before 2030 to limit the worst consequences of climate change.
LOAD-DATE: November 12, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
379 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(First Draft)
November 12, 2014 Wednesday
On Climate Change, Voters Are as Partisan as Ever
BYLINE: ALAN RAPPEPORT
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 154 words
HIGHLIGHT: Members of Congress tend to tread carefully on the climate debate, and last week’s midterm elections showed why they are wise to do so.
The climate change agreement reached between President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China has quickly drawn a mix of praise and scorn among American lawmakers who woke up to the news. Unsurprisingly, the responses fell largely along party lines.
Members of Congress tend to tread carefully on the climate debate, and last week's midterm elections showed why they are wise to do so.
According to a national exit poll conducted by Edison Research, 86 percent of voters who identified themselves as Democrats said climate change was a serious problem, while 12 percent said it was not.
Of those who identified themselves as Republicans, 31 percent said climate change was a serious problem, and 67 percent said otherwise.
Mr. Obama and the new Republican leadership have said they will look for areas where they can find common ground, but last week's election shows why legislation to address climate change is not on the list.
LOAD-DATE: November 12, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
380 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Taking Note)
November 12, 2014 Wednesday
Meet the Republican's Top Guy on the Environment, James Inhofe
BYLINE: JULIET LAPIDOS
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 414 words
HIGHLIGHT: The Senator once called the E.P.A. a “Gestapo bureaucracy.”
No sooner did President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China announce goals for combatting climate change than Senator Jim Inhofe denounced them. The Oklahoma Republican called the accord a "non-binding charade" on Wednesday and told The Washington Post that he would do his utmost to let environmental devastation continue apace. In his actual words: "As we enter a new Congress, I will do everything in my power to rein in and shed light on the EPA's unchecked regulations."
That power isn't minimal, given that Mr. Inhofe will take control of the Environmental and Public Works Committee in January. Comforting, isn't it, that the G.O.P.'s top guy on the environment plans to spend his time bullying the agency dedicated to protecting the environment?Mr. Inhofe's anti-environmentalist record is as pristine as an old-growth forest, which the senator would surely vote to turn into a logging site.
He published a book in 2012 called "The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future" and said in 2006 that that United Nations invented the idea of global warming in order to "shut down the machine called America." Once the U.N. kicked things off, moneyed interests kept up the scam. "Those individuals from the far left," he told Fox News in 2007, "and I'm talking about the Hollywood elitists and the United Nations and those individuals, want us to believe it's because we're contributing C02 to the atmosphere that's causing global warming. It's all about money. I mean what would happen to the Weather Channel's ratings if all of a sudden people weren't scared anymore?"
The Weather Channel bit might have been his idea of a joke. Mr. Inhofe showed his lighter side in the winter of 2010, after a snow storm in D.C., by building an igloo with a sign that read "Al Gore's New Home." Another sign read "Honk if you love global warming."
Or maybe he wasn't joking. He doesn't appear to have been kidding around when he called the E.P.A. a "Gestapo bureaucracy."
Confusingly, for someone so committed to the argument that climate change is a hoax, he also thinks that anyone who believes in climate change is unconscionably arrogant-because of God. In 2012, he said on a Voice of Christian Youth America radio program that "God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."
Does that mean Mr. Inhofe's God roots for, and maybe even directs, coal interests?
LOAD-DATE: November 12, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
381 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 11, 2014 Tuesday 8:35 PM GMT
G20 Brisbane: Abbott faces uphill task to make summit relevant or effective;
Boosting growth, infrastructure, tax enforcement and free trade are all on the agenda - but can it be more than a pointless talkfest?
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 2037 words
Tony Abbott wants this weekend's G20 meeting to be seen to achieve something tangible, not just to be a pointless talkfest attracting protests and disrupting Brisbane's traffic. The same goal is critical for the future of the six-year old institution as it struggles to retain relevance.
But do the "announceables" that will be touted at close of play really amount to much? What will the meeting actually do?
Understanding what it can achieve requires a brief reprise of its history. The G20 was set up after the Asian financial crisis as an annual gathering of finance ministers and central bank governors from developed and developing countries.
But when the global financial crisis hit in 2008 it became a leaders-level meeting, taking over from the G8 as the premier forum coordinating global economic policies because its membership included countries such as China, India and Indonesia and better reflected the realities of the modern global economy. It also happened to give Australia a seat at the top table of global economic decision making.
Six years later, Mike Callaghan, director of the Lowy Institute's G20 studies centre, argues that while the first three G20s leaders' summits in Washington, London and Pittsburgh helped avert an even more severe economic crisis, the organisation now risks losing relevance.
With no secretariat, no treaty or legal instrument to back up its decisions and no power to force member nations to do anything, the G20's aim is to influence countries' domestic policies, and to cooperate, in ways that boost economic growth and strengthen the institutions that oversee the global economy.
But as former first deputy managing director of the IMF John Lipsky argued in a speech earlier this year, its recent successes have been limited.
"It is hard to say with certainty that any G20 member has altered its policy plans in the interest of achieving greater policy coherence - and therefore effectiveness - with its G20 partners."
Lipsky said the G20 lacked focus and it was "felt widely that the agenda over time had become overburdened with worthy issues, but ones that were not within the direct purview of the G20, that tended to dilute the focus of the summits, and that didn't lead to clear conclusions or actionable results".
Also undermining the organisation's credibility is the fact that it has been unable to deliver on previous headline commitments.
In 2010, for example, the G20 agreed to what were widely called "historic" reforms to the governance of the International Monetary Fund to recognise the growing power of emerging markets.
They are supported by the US administration, but remain blocked in the US congress. In the meantime the so-called Brics nations - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa - became so frustrated they moved to set up a development bank of their own.
Aware of all of this, determined to maintain the influence and clout of the G20, and also intent on using the gathering to enhance its domestic political standing, the Australian government has said its 2014 presidency would focus squarely on the organisation's original goals - economic growth, stronger financial institutions and free trade.
Australia was so determined negotiators should keep focused it decreed the final communique could be no longer than three pages (something it appears will only be achieved by the addition of voluminous appendices).
The three pages remain under wraps but the basics of what is supposed to be agreed in Brisbane are clear.
The "Brisbane action plan"
In February the G20 finance ministers agreed to list new policies that could boost the collective growth of their economies by an extra 2% over the next five years - which would be worth $2 trillion if it ever happened.
The Brisbane plan will list the 1,000 or more nominated policies, which makes it a lot more detailed than the St Petersburg plan from the last G20 summit, where the commitments were pretty brief and vague.
While the cynical would argue it had probably already occurred to most of the G20 leaders that economic growth was a good thing to aim for, those closely involved in these negotiations insist the process has meant some countries have put forward policies they had not previously considered.
And the G20 does have a "peer review" process to determine whether countries implement the policies on their list, although peer disapproval appears to be the only consequence for those who do not.
But what we know about Australia's list demonstrates the limitations of the process. The prime minister has said it will include highly contentious policies that have not passed the senate and may not become law, including university fee deregulation and the proposed Medicare co-payment.
This is obviously a signal to the domestic audience of his absolute resolve to get the controversial plans through, but what does it say to the international leaders in Brisbane who are being told they must only list things they are sure they can do?
It also reportedly includes "employment welfare reforms" - such as denying unemployment benefits to under-30s for six months - which also appear unlikely to pass the senate, and according to Labor's assistant treasury spokesman Andrew Leigh, could actually slow growth by reducing consumer demand.
And civil society groups are concerned that the action plan - at Australia's instigation, they say - now omits previous references to the need for "inclusive" economic growth that does not exacerbate inequality.
"The Australian government has refused to commit to inclusive growth and does not acknowledge the impact of inequality on growth. Financial institutions and many other G20 governments do recognise the issue as a threat to growth and among them is next year's host, Turkey," Oxfam says.
Tim Costello, chief executive of World Vision and co-chair of the C20, a civil society process feeding into G20 deliberations, also says "it appears the language about equality and inclusive growth has been taken out and we are hearing that is at Australia's instigation".
Tony Abbott insists the growth plan with automatically translate into additional jobs, but civil society observers like Costello says this is not necessarily the case if the growth is inequitable.
Infrastructure funding
A key Australian "announceable" in Brisbane will be the establishment of a global infrastructure hub, to be based in Sydney.
It would match investors with infrastructure projects and help establish uniform rules for risk assessments and other practices.
But Australia has been unable to convince other countries to make major financial contributions, and many were concerned it would duplicate work already being done by the World Bank and resisted the idea of the G20 spawning a new permanent institution.
Undeterred, Australia appears to have won support for a temporary, four-year "hub", financed primarily by the Australian government and businesses.
This has already been heralded as a "win" for the host nation and welcomed by the Australia's Labor opposition.
International tax avoidance
Global companies have been legally outwitting national tax agencies for years. Google, for example, paid only $7m tax in Australia in 2013, a tenfold increase on the previous year, but still only a tiny fraction of the profits it reaps here. Apple, Starbucks and other multinationals are equally good at exploiting legal loopholes to minimise tax.
A recent report in Australia suggested many of the top 200 ASX companies might be aggressively minimising their tax, through multiple subsidiaries in tax haven jurisdictions. The OECD has taken the lead in the multilateral crackdown, but the G20 also discusses it.
In Brisbane leaders will be asked to agree to four measures:
A "common reporting standard" a requirement that banks identify and report on the tax affairs on non residents to their home country. Countries will also be asked to say when they will start the new rule, aimed at flushing out individuals and companies hiding their wealth in offshore tax havens. This has already been negotiated through the OECD and many countries already formally signed an agreement to automatically exchange information in Berlin last month.
A pledge to force multinationals to report their accounts country by country to avoid tax avoidance through complicated deals and profit shifting. But the multinationals' country by country reports will only be available to tax authorities, not publicly. And some countries, including Australia, have delayed the scheme's implementation for a year. Claire Spoors, the G20 coordinator for Oxfam, said the recent leaked tax documents showing how thousands of major companies were legally minimising tax through tax deals involving Luxembourg proved that public reporting of country by country profits would be much a more effective deterrent.
A pledge to force companies and other legal entities to agree to principles about disclosing the beneficial ownership of companies. Transparency International claims China has been blocking agreement on this.
Free trade
The Doha round of global multilateral trade talks has been limping along for more than 10 years and broke down completely in August after India refused to back a deal finalised in Bali in 2013 unless it included concessions allowing developing countries freedom to subsidise and stockpile food. The G20's official website declares it will "seek a G20 commitment to timely implementation of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement concluded in Bali, Indonesia, in December 2013" but negotiators concede its efforts are unlikely to make much of a difference.
Energy efficiency and climate change
As reported by Guardian Australia, Australia has reluctantly conceded the final G20 communique should include climate change as a single paragraph, acknowledging that it should be addressed by UN processes. Australia's original position was that the meeting should focus solely on "economic issues".
The text that has so far made it through the G20's closed-door, consensus-driven process is very general, and reads as follows: "We support strong and effective action to address climate change, consistent with sustainable economic growth and certainty for business and investment. We reaffirm our resolve to adopt a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that is applicable to all parties at the 21st Conference of the Parties in Paris in 2015."
Australia has also been resisting a last-ditch push by the US, France and other European countries leaders to endorse contributions to the Green Climate Fund - as they did last year in St Petersburg.
The Green Climate Fund aims to help poorer countries cut their emissions and prepare for the impact of climate change, and is seen as critical to securing developing-nation support for a successful deal on reducing emissions at the United Nations meeting in Paris next year, but Tony Abbott has previously rejected the fund as a "Bob Brown bank on an international scale" - referring to the former leader of the Australian Greens.
The Australian government says its attitude is driven by the aim to focus the G20 squarely on its economic brief, although the president of the world bank, Jim Yong Kim and others are pretty clear climate change fits within that remit.
Everything else
As well as the formal agenda items, G20 meetings also give leaders a chance to discuss pressing issues of the day, which in Brisbane are certain to be the global response to ebola, the conflict in the Ukraine, the international action against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria and Russia's response to the downing of Mhl - with Tony Abbott now saying he won't so much "shirtfront" the Russian president as "seek an assurance" that he will do all in his power to bring the perpetrators to justice.
With the IMF revising down its global growth forecasts, the World Trade Organisation revising down estimated growth in global trade volumes and multilateral trade talks stalled, the G20's "core business" is important. But it remains unclear whether the deliberations will make any real progress.
LOAD-DATE: November 11, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
382 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 11, 2014 Tuesday 7:47 PM GMT
Interstellar: magnificent film, insane fantasy;
Movies about abandoning Earth reflect the political defeatism of our age: that adapting to climate breakdown is preferable to stopping it
BYLINE: George Monbiot
SECTION: COMMENT IS FREE
LENGTH: 1187 words
"It's like we've forgotten who we are," the hero of Interstellar complains. "Explorers, pioneers, not caretakers... We're not meant to save the world. We're meant to leave it." This could be the epigraph of our age.
Don't get me wrong. Interstellar is a magnificent film, true to the richest traditions of science fiction, visually and auditorily astounding. See past the necessary silliness and you will find a moving exploration of parenthood, separation and ageing. It is also a classic exposition of two of the great themes of our age: technological optimism and political defeatism.
The Earth and its inhabitants are facing planetary catastrophe, caused by "six billion people, and every one of them trying to have it all", which weirdly translates into a succession of blights, trashing the world's crops and sucking the oxygen out of the atmosphere. (When your major receipts are in the United States, you can't afford to earn the hatred of the broadcast media by mentioning climate change. The blight, an obvious substitute, has probably averted millions of dollars of lost takings).
The civilisational collapse at the start of the film is intercut with interviews featuring veterans of the dustbowl of the 1930s. Their worn faces prefigure the themes of ageing and loss. But they also remind us inadvertently of a world of political agency. Great follies were committed, but big, brave things were done to put them right: think of the New Deal and the Civilian Conservation Corps. That world is almost as different from our own as the planets visited by Interstellar's astronauts.
They leave the Earth to find a place to which humans can escape or, if that fails, a world in which a cargo of frozen embryos can be deposited. It takes an effort, when you emerge from the cinema, to remember that such fantasies are taken seriously by millions of adults, who consider them a realistic alternative to addressing the problems we face on Earth.
Nasa runs a website devoted to the idea. It claims that gigantic spaceships, "could be wonderful places to live; about the size of a California beach town and endowed with weightless recreation, fantastic views, freedom, elbow-room in spades, and great wealth". Of course, no one could leave, except to enter another spaceship, and the slightest malfunction would cause instant annihilation. But "settlements in earth orbit will have one of the most stunning views in our solar system - the living, ever-changing Earth." We can look back and remember how beautiful it was.
And then there's the money to be made. "Space colonization is, at its core, a real estate business," the Nasa website goes on. "Those that colonize space will control vast lands, enormous amounts of electrical power, and nearly unlimited material resources. [This] will create wealth beyond our wildest imagination and wield power - hopefully for good rather than for ill." In other words, we would leave not only the Earth behind, but also ourselves.
That's a common characteristic of such fantasies: their lack of imagination. Wild flights of technological fancy are accompanied by a stolid incapacity to picture the inner life of those who might inhabit such systems. People who would consider the idea of living in the Gobi Desert intolerable - where, an estate agent might point out, there is oxygen, radiation-screening, atmospheric pressure and 1 g of gravity - rhapsodise about living on Mars. People who imagine that human life on Earth will end because of power and greed and oppression imagine that we will be able to escape these forces in pressure vessels controlled by technicians, in which we would be trapped like tadpoles in a jamjar.
If space colonisation is impossible today - when Richard Branson, for all his billions, cannot even propel people safely past the atmosphere - how will it look in a world that has fallen so far into disaster that leaving it for a lifeless, airless lump of rock would be perceived as a good option? We would be lucky in these circumstances to possess the wherewithal to make bricks.
Only by understanding this as a religious impulse can we avoid the conclusion that those who gleefully await this future are insane. Just as it is easier to pray for life after death than it is to confront oppression, this fantasy permits us to escape the complexities of life on Earth for a starlit wonderland beyond politics. In Interstellar, as in many other versions of the story - think of Battlestar Galactica and Red Planet - space is heaven, overseen by a benign Technology, peopled by delivering angels with oxygen tanks.
Space colonisation is an extreme version of a common belief: that it is easier to adapt to our problems than to solve them. Earlier this year, the economist Andrew Lilico argued in the Telegraph that we cannot afford to prevent escalating climate change, so instead we must learn to live with it. He was challenged on Twitter to explain how people in the tropics might adapt to a world in which four degrees of global warming had taken place. He replied: "I imagine tropics adapt to 4C world by being wastelands with few folk living in them. Why's that not an option ?"
Re-reading Lilico's article in the light of this comment, I realised that it hinged on the word "we". When the headline maintained that "We have failed to prevent global warming, so we must adapt to it", the "we" referred in these instances to different people. We who live in the rich world can brook no taxation to encourage green energy, or regulation to discourage the consumption of fossil fuels. We cannot adapt even to an extra penny of taxation. But the other "we", which turns out to mean "they" - the people of the tropics - can and must adapt to the loss of their homes, their land and their lives, as entire regions become wastelands. Why is that not an option?
The lives of the poor appear unimaginable to people in his position, like the lives of those who might move to another planet or a space station. So reducing the amount of energy we consume and replacing fossil fuels with other sources - simple and cheap as these are by comparison to all other options - is inconceivable and outrageous, while the mass abandonment of much of the inhabited surface of the world is a realistic and reasonable request. "It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger," the 18th century philosopher David Hume noted, and here we see his contemplation reified.
But at least Lilico could explain what he meant, in contrast with most of those who talk breezily about adapting to climate breakdown. Relocating cities to higher ground? Moving roads and railways, diverting rivers, depopulating nations, leaving the planet? Never mind the details. Technology, our interstellar god, will sort it out, some day, somehow.
Technological optimism and political defeatism: this is a formula for the deferment of hard choices to an ever receding netherland of life after planetary death. No wonder it is popular.
· Twitter: @georgemonbiot. A fully referenced version of this article can be found at Monbiot.com
LOAD-DATE: November 11, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
383 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 11, 2014 Tuesday 2:20 PM GMT
40 things you never knew about Leonardo DiCaprio;
Hollywood actor, producer and man bun savant Leonardo DiCaprio turns 40 today. As a birthday gift, we've rustled up one piece of trivia for every year of his life
BYLINE: Tshepo Mokoena
SECTION: FILM
LENGTH: 864 words
1) Leonardo DiCaprio's first film role was in Critters 3, and not as Toby Wolf in This Boy's Life.
2) Robert De Niro allegedly hand-picked DiCaprio from hundreds of boys for the part in This Boy's Life.
3) DiCaprio's exquisite man bun made an appearance at the United Nations climate change summit in September 2014.
4) A Time journalist once dubbed DiCaprio boring, for the actor's ability to reel off the names of 20 endangered species from memory.
5) His passion for climate-change activism burns so hot that, as of today, his official website is 80% environmental concern and 20% Wolf of Wall Street.
6) He's never done drugs, and had to speak to a drug expert to prepare for Wolf of Wall Street.
7) He and Jonah Hill also reportedly watched this YouTube video of "the drunkest man in the world" for inspiration.
8) As a child, he briefly attended experimental and progressive school the University Elementary School (now called UCLA Lab School ).
9) His time at the school, away from the public school system and his gritty neighbourhood, made him want to retreat into acting as a teen.
10) His mother named him Leonardo because she was pregnant and looking at a Da Vinci painting in a museum when he first kicked.
11) His mother's name was Irmelin Indenbirken, and she was born in Germany.
12) His father, George DiCaprio, is half-Bavarian and half-Italian.
13) DiCaprio first received an Academy award nomination in 1993 for his role as Arnie Grape in What's Eating Gilbert Grape.
14) In the 21 years since, he's yet to win an Oscar. He's been beaten five times.
15) Who are we kidding, you knew that already. But did you know that Sharon Stone reportedly footed his entire salary, for 1995's The Quick and the Dead, because she wanted him in the movie that badly? It flopped.
16) In total, DiCaprio has been nominated for eight Screen Actors Guild awards, three Baftas and two Saturn awards - and won absolutely none of them. Our hearts bleed for you, Leo.
17) In his early 20s partying heyday, Leo's entourage was known as the Pussy Posse (help).
18) At one point, magician David Blaine, actor Tobey Maguire and writer/director Harmony Korine were all part of said posse.
19) Photographer Patrick McMullan snapped Blaine, DiCaprio and actor Lukas Haas (another posse member) in a rare candid shot in 1995, before DiCaprio's career skyrocketed.
20) As a 10-year-old girl, I watched Titanic four times in the cinema (three times in English and once in French because the English screening was full) in its opening month.
21) In fact, apparently 7% of teenage girls in America had watched Titanic twice within the first five weeks of its release.
22) DiCaprio was chased through the Louvre by a gaggle of teen girls in 1998. He probably should have sorted a Blue Ivy Carter-style shutdown.
23) According to Mark Bego's book Leonardo DiCaprio: Romantic Hero (not, in fact, a working title), DiCaprio drew a swastika on his head in class as a child, in a Charles Manson imitation.
24) DiCaprio was famously cheap in his club-hopping days, and known for not tipping in bars.
25) He's apparently the highest-grossing actor to have never acted in a sequel.
26) There is erotic fan fiction about DiCaprio as the Other Man.
27) There is fan fiction about DiCaprio finally winning an Oscar but only having until the end of that day to live.
28) There is romantic fan fiction about DiCaprio building tree houses from scratch to avoid the paparazzi.
29) DiCaprio met the real Frank Abagnale, Jr - the con-man character he played in 2002's Catch Me If You Can - while working on the film.
30) DiCaprio was so drawn by Abagnale's charm that he invited him to his home.
31) In a 2013 Hollywood Reporter profile, Mark Wahlberg revealed that he and DiCaprio initially hated each other when cast in 1995's Basketball Diaries.
32) Apparently it only took one scene for Wahlberg and DiCaprio to see eye to eye: "So I come in and I do the audition and I kind of look at him and he kind of looks at me, and then we do a scene, and they're like, 'Hmm, this fucking dude's pretty good, right?'" Wahlberg told the Hollywood Reporter. Fair enough.
33) Author Grace Catalano published not one, but two books about DiCaprio before he'd hit 25.
34) DiCaprio helped win once-girlfriend Bijou Philips her role in James Toback's 1999 film Black and White.
35) DiCaprio first appeared on screen aged five in children's TV show Romper Room, but was fired for being too disruptive.
36) He was originally cast as genius codebreaker Alan Turing in The Imitation Game, but passed over for Benedict Cumberbatch.
37) Though DiCaprio expressed interest in Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge, his self-described atrocious singing voice blew his chances of a lead role.
38) He turned down the part of Max Dennison in horror comedy Hocus Pocus, even though it came with the offer of "more money than [he] ever dreamed of".
39) DiCaprio smokes e-cigarettes.
40) Finally, DiCaprio celebrated his birthday last year with a charity bash: rapper Kanye West performed, a PR company shot shaky Instagram video footage of the evening and DiCaprio raised $3m for his environmental foundation. Well, he's only got to top that this year - no biggie.
LOAD-DATE: November 11, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
384 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 11, 2014 Tuesday 12:12 PM GMT
Your brain on climate change: why the threat produces apathy, not action;
Many people aren't responding to mounting evidence of the huge impacts of climate change. Neuroscience helps explain why - and the key role that businesses can play in responding rationally
BYLINE: Greg Harman
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 1310 words
Voter behavior has long held mysteries for both politicians and psychologists. Why do poor and working-class voters across the US South, for instance, still line up to support conservative candidates whose policies favor the rich, weaken the social-safety net and limit access to affordable health care?
Some in the field of moral psychology have argued that national politics is " more like religion than it is like shopping ". Entrenched notions of cultural identity, in other words, can often be more motivating than short-term policy promises.
But how to explain the paralyzing resistance to climate change action, where the risks approach existential peaks unseen in historical human experience?
Despite spending a record amount of money to sway the mid-term US elections, environmental groups and high-profile donors failed to avert a sweeping Republican victory last week, in which candidates opposing the regulation of greenhouse gases and championing the expansion of tar sands pipelines won big.
It's not as though the facts aren't there: the global scientific community has warned us for years about the present and future impacts of climate change linked to fossil fuel use. Earlier this month, for example, the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report came out, warning of "severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts" if carbon emissions are not halted fast.
"Science has spoken," UN secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon said during the report's release. "Time is not on our side."
With so much at stake, why do people fail to act? What's happening inside their brains?
Thanks to decades of collaboration between neuroscientists and psychologists - bolstered by the advent of imaging technologies, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging, which allows them to see exactly how the brain makes choices - we're beginning to understand just why people behave so irrationally. Part of the reason, according to these studies, is that - for the human brain - climate change simply does not compute.
For one thing, human brains aren't wired to respond easily to large, slow-moving threats.
"Our brain is essentially a get-out-of-the-way machine," Daniel Gilbert, a professor of psychology at Harvard best known for his research into happiness, told audiences at Harvard Thinks Big 2010. "That's why we can duck a baseball in milliseconds."
While we have come to dominate the planet because of such traits, he said, threats that develop over decades rather than seconds circumvent the brain's alarm system. "Many environmentalists say climate change is happening too fast. No, it's happening too slowly. It's not happening nearly quickly enough to get our attention."
Humans are saddled with other shortcomings, too. "Loss aversion" means we're more afraid of losing what we want in the short-term than surmounting obstacles in the distance. Our built-in "optimism bias" irrationally projects sunny days ahead in spite of evidence to the contrary. To compound all that, we tend to seek out information not for the sake of gaining knowledge for its own sake, but to support our already-established viewpoints.
Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Memorial Prize winner in economics, writes in " Thinking, Fast and Slow " that our brains respond most decisively to those things we know for certain. The more uncertainty that comes along (if climate change will bring 2C degrees of warming or 6C; whether hurricanes will intensity in the Pacific and the Atlantic; if the world's governments could even stave off the worst of the predicted disasters if they acted immediately in concert) the less we are able to act on what we know for certain. A study from the University of Rochester in 2012 also confirms this tendency.
"In a way, it's unfair to expect people, homo sapiens, to do this kind of monitoring, to do this kind of decision making, because we're not wired for that," said Elke Weber, a professor of management and psychology at Columbia University.
Considering how irrational individual minds are, business, which is at least "theoretically rational", may have more capacity to lead a climate change response. Once historical notions of the primacy of short-term profitability are swept aside, that is.
"Individuals have a cognitive bias to instant gratification," Tima Bansal, executive director of the Network for Business Sustainability in London, Ontario, Canada, and a professor at the Ivey Business School. "Organizations, which are theoretically rational, have another mindset. Rational behavior means you would take the discounted future cash flow of your earnings, so you would make the long-term investments."
So why are most businesses still stuck in short-term thinking about profitability?
One key challenge, of course, is the pressure from investors seeking quarterly returns. "That's an institutional phenomenon," Bansal said. "We're pushing our organizations to short-termism so I will never make the investment in a new plant, I will never make the investment in training my employees, because really I should pay them as little as I can to make my expectations next quarter."
That thinking is changing, however, as evidenced in an increasing number of companies moving away from quarterly to semi-annual reporting, she said.
She also pointed to conversations occurring within the NBS Leadership Council, a group of sustainability leaders drawn from across Canada's economic sectors, including 3M, Tech, Suncor Energy, and Unilever. The group gathers annually to discuss their most pressing sustainability concerns and challenges, she said. And that conversation has moved quickly in recent years from how to make sustainability profitable to how to motivate consumers and, at the council's September gathering, how to work with competing companies to create social change - "truly dealing with the tragedy of the commons", she said.
More information may not be the key for climate action or to increase sustainability scores, and doomsday message tend to fail across the board, Weber said. What works better is the use of status, metrics and friendly competition. As she put it:
Carbon footprints have been useful because people can improve. You can actually have a positive trajectory and feel good about that. Then you can compete. Everybody likes to have that smiley face; no one likes to have that frowny face. In more rational environments you need metrics. Metrics focusing our attention on these longer time horizon outcomes and goals is what we need because we naturally focus on the here and now. We don't need to promote that.
"Short-termism," Bansal added, "is the bane of sustainability."
So is, it seems, the individual mind.
"Self-control is a huge issue for people, whether it's what we're eating or saving for our retirement," Weber said. Referencing a classic psychological experiment on gratification, she added:
There's a two-year-old in the back of our minds that's still there that we've learned to overrule that wants to have their one marshmallow now rather than wait for two marshmallows. Very few people on this planet want to destroy planet earth. It's just that our other agendas get in the way of things that might have a longer time horizon.
Read more stories like this:
The lonely fight against the biggest environmental problem you've never heard of
The business cost of climate change
What businesses need to know about the latest climate science
Fact checking three new surprising sustainability studies
Science and sustainability goals: what researchers want businesses to know
The Science Behind Sustainability Solutions blog is funded by the Arizona State University Walton Sustainability Solutions Initiatives. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled advertisement feature. Find out more here.
LOAD-DATE: November 11, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
385 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 11, 2014 Tuesday 11:18 AM GMT
The real story of US coal: inside the world's biggest coalmine;
Despite Obama's pledge to cut carbon emissions, production at North Antelope Rochelle mine in Wyoming is booming - and climate change is off the agenda. Suzanne Goldenberg gets a rare look inside the biggest coalmine in the world
BYLINE: Report by Suzanne Goldenberg and video by Mae Ryan in North Antelope Rochelle Mine, Wyoming
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1872 words
In the world's biggest coalmine, even a 400 tonne truck looks like a toy. Everything about the scale of Peabody Energy's operations in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming is big and the mines are only going to get bigger - despite new warnings from the United Nations on the dangerous burning of fossil fuels, despite Barack Obama's promises to fight climate change, and despite reports that coal is in its death throes.
At the east pit of Peabody's North Antelope Rochelle mine, the layer of coal takes up 60ft of a 250ft trough in the earth, and runs in an uninterrupted black stripe for 50 miles.
With those vast, easy-to-reach deposits, Powder River has overtaken West Virginia and Kentucky as the big coalmining territory. The pro-coal Republicans' takeover of Congress in the mid-term elections also favours Powder River.
"You're looking at the world's largest mine," said Scott Durgin, senior vice-president for Peabody's operations in the Powder River Basin, watching the giant machinery at work. "This is one of the biggest seams you will ever see. This particular shovel is one of the largest shovels you can buy, and that is the largest truck you can buy."
By Durgin's rough estimate, the mine occupies 100 square miles of high treeless prairie, about the same size as Washington DC. It contains an estimated three billion tonnes of coal reserves. It would take Peabody 25 or 30 years to mine it all.
But it's still not big enough.
On the conference room wall, a map of North Antelope Rochelle shows two big shaded areas containing an estimated one billion tonnes of coal. Peabody is preparing to acquire leasing rights when they come up in about 2022 or 2024. "You've got to think way ahead," said Durgin.
In the fossil fuel jackpot that is Wyoming, it can be hard to see a future beyond coal. One of the few who can is LJ Turner, whose grandfather and father homesteaded on the high treeless plains nearly a century ago.
Turner, who raises sheep and cattle, said his business had suffered in the 30 years of the mines' explosive growth. Dust from the mines was aggravating pneumonia among his Red Angus calves. One year, he lost 25 calves, he said.
"We are making a national sacrifice out of this region," he said. "Peabody coal and other coal companies want to keep on mining, and mine this country out and leave it as a sacrifice and they want to do it for their bottom line. It's not for the United States. They want to sell it overseas, and I want to see that stopped."
As do some of the most powerful people on the planet. About 120 world leaders met at the United Nations (UN) in September to commit to fighting climate change - many noting that the evidence of warming was occurring in real time. Obama last year proposed new rules that will make it almost impossible to build new coal power plants.
Last week, an exhaustive UN report from the world's top scientists warned of "severe, widespread and irreversible impacts" without dramatic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
Coal is also facing competition from cheap natural gas. Peabody had a very bad year in 2013, losing $525m (£328m) as global demand for coal flatlined.
But despite the promises from Obama and other world leaders the use of coal for energy rose again last year in America, Europe and in Asia - and so did the emissions that cause climate change.
Peabody continued to post losses this year. But extraction and revenue from the Powder River Basin mines went up - and company officials say they could ship out even more coal if they could just get the trains to run on time.
On an average day, 21 long freight trains full of coal leave North Antelope Rochelle bound for 100 power plants across the country. But the company says that's still not enough. As for climate change - that's hardly Peabody's concern.
The company is deeply reluctant to even mention the words. Durgin, who refuses to appear on camera, introduced himself an "active environmentalist, not an environmental activist".
Chris Curran, a Peabody spokesman, refused to talk about climate change or the effects of Obama's efforts to cut carbon emissions on the company's profits. "They are only proposed regulations right now. Nothing is going on," he said.
It takes a call to the senior vice-president of corporate communications, Vic Svec, at the head office in St Louis before the company will discuss climate change. As it turns out, the company's official position is that there is no such thing as human-caused climate change. "We do not question the climate changing. It has been changing for as long as man has recorded history," Svec said. Climate change was a "modelled crisis", he went on.
"What we would say is that there is still far more understanding that is required for any type of impacts of C02 on carbon concerns." Asked whether he saw climate change as a threat, Svec said: "Climate concerns are a threat to the extent that they lead to policies that hurt people."
Peabody's official position on climate science is divorced from scientific reality. But their grasp of the politics of coal clearly is not.
America gets about 40% of its electricity from coal - and by far the biggest share of that coal comes from Powder River. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), its use of coal for energy rose 4.8% last year, in part because of the Arctic blasts of the polar vortex. Carbon dioxide emissions from energy registered one of their steepest rises in the last quarter century.
Australia, where Peabody has three mines and which has the world's second largest reserves of coal, has ramped up production 37% since 2000, helped by up to $3.5bn in government subsidies to the entire fossil fuel industry, a forthcoming report from the Overseas Development Institute and Oil Change International will say.
China has doubled its use of coal over the last decade. India is preparing to open its large coal reserves to foreign mining companies to meet a promise to hook up the 400 million without electricity on to the grid in the next five years.
Coal use in Germany rose last year for the third year in a row, even as the country met its ambitious targets to transition to wind and solar power. Poland has been promoting its coal as an alternative to Russian natural gas.
Overall global coal use rose 3% last year, faster than any other fossil fuel, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy.
That's a disaster in the making, scientists and energy experts say. The International Energy Agency has concluded that two-thirds of all fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground if the world is going to avoid crossing the 2C threshold into dangerous climate change.
Obama agrees. Burning all of those fossil fuels would trigger "dire consequences" for the planet, he told an interviewer last June. "We're not going to be able to burn it all."
But the reality is that Obama has spent the last six years expanding coal, oil and gas production under his "all of the above" energy strategy.
"We quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We've added enough new oil and gas pipeline to encircle the earth and then some," Obama told a rally during his 2012 re-election campaign.
Coal exports have risen on Obama's watch, with mining companies shipping some 100m tonnes a year for each of the last three years. Mining companies are actively pursuing plans to expand coal ports and ship more coal overseas, as a back-up market should the incoming Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules on carbon pollution make it harder to burn coal for electricity.
Meanwhile, the federal government, under Obama, gave away $26m last year in tax breaks to the coal industry, according to the Overseas Development Industry report.
Even if the president wants to do more to curb coal, the Democrats' heavy defeat in the mid-term elections means there will be no pull in that direction from Congress. Mitch McConnell, the Republicans' leader in the Senate ran on a slogan of "Guns, Freedom and Coal".
But even before the mid-terms, campaigners say the rise in coal use under Obama undermines his climate agenda and could wipe out efforts by other countries to fight climate change. Last July, a judge in Colorado agreed, throwing out a mining permit granted by the Bureau of Land Management on the grounds that it would worsen climate change.
What's especially frustrating, campaigners say, is that Powder River Basin coal is on public lands, which means that Obama could intervene to limit future mines.
"This whole notion that you can just address the smoke stack is wishful thinking at the end of the day. Why wouldn't you address the problem from cradle to grave? Why wouldn't you trace it all the way back to where it is being produced rather than just look at the stack?" said Jeremy Nichols, climate and energy director from Wild Earth Guardians.
Campaigners say they see little evidence Obama has tried to curb coal use. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which oversees extraction on public lands, shows little sign of incorporating Obama's climate change directive into future planning.
The agency came in for scathing criticism from government auditors earlier this year who said the BLM gave up too much control to the mining companies, and sold coal too cheaply, to the detriment of US taxpayers.
Those low prices are crucial to Peabody's business model. "It's a high volume, lower priced product and we can still ship literally across the country and compete," Durgin said. In 2012, the company acquired the rights to mine an additional billion tonnes of coal, paying just $1.11 a tonne. Peabody also pays 12.5% royalties to the US federal government, once the coal is mined.
Campaigners say such prices represent a giveaway that allows mining companies like Peabody to keep the prices for Powder River Basin coal artificially low.
Campaigners also argue low coal prices make it harder to ramp up production from renewable energy sources like wind and solar.
"We have never seen leases of more than a billion tonnes and we are starting to see that under the Obama Administration," Nichols said.
The Department of Interior, which has final authority over public lands, refused to respond to multiple requests for comment on its efforts to implement Obama's climate policies.
Instead, a stock email attributed to Jessica Kershaw, the interior spokeswoman, confirmed that Obama was committed to mining more coal.
"As part of the Obama Administration's all-of-the-above energy strategy, the Department of the Interior and specifically the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is committed to the safe and responsible development of both traditional and renewable energy resources on public lands," the email read.
"The BLM also recognizes that coal is a key component of America's comprehensive energy portfolio and the nation's economy. "
The email did not mention climate change.
For Peabody though, the aim is expansion. The company produced 134m tonnes of coal from its combined Powder River Basin mines last year, and was on track to increase production this year, Durgin said.
"I've been asked when is the end of the mine," said Durgin. "I don't know. Economics will tell us that." So long as Obama pursues policies that keep coal cheap, that end is unlikely to come soon.
LOAD-DATE: November 11, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
386 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 11, 2014 Tuesday 9:15 AM GMT
Rich countries subsidising oil, gas and coal companies by $88bn a year;
US, UK, Australia giving tax breaks to explore new reserves despite climate advice that fossil fuels should be left buried· Fossil fuel exploration subsidies - mapped
BYLINE: John Vidal
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 642 words
Rich countries are subsidising oil, gas and coal companies by about $88bn (£55.4bn) a year to explore for new reserves, despite evidence that most fossil fuels must be left in the ground if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change.
The most detailed breakdown yet of global fossil fuel subsidies has found that the US government provided companies with $5.2bn for fossil fuel exploration in 2013, Australia spent $3.5bn, Russia $2.4bn and the UK $1.2bn. Most of the support was in the form of tax breaks for exploration in deep offshore fields.
The public money went to major multinationals as well as smaller ones who specialise in exploratory work, according to British thinktank the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and Washington-based analysts Oil Change International.
Britain, says their report, proved to be one of the most generous countries. In the five year period to 2014 it gave tax breaks totalling over $4.5bn to French, US, Middle Eastern and north American companies to explore the North Sea for fast-declining oil and gas reserves. A breakdown of that figure showed over $1.2bn of British money went to two French companies, GDF-Suez and Total, $450m went to five US companies including Chevron, and $992m to five British companies.
Britain also spent public funds for foreign companies to explore in Azerbaijan, Brazil, Ghana, Guinea, India and Indonesia, as well as Russia, Uganda and Qatar, according to the report's data, which is drawn from the OECD, government documents, company reports and institutions.
The figures, published ahead of this week's G20 summit in Brisbane, Australia, contains the first detailed breakdown of global fossil fuel exploration subsidies. It shows an extraordinary "merry-go-round" of countries supporting each others' companies. The US spends $1.4bn a year for exploration in Columbia, Nigeria and Russia, while Russia is subsidising exploration in Venezuela and China, which in turn supports companies exploring Canada, Brazil and Mexico.
"The evidence points to a publicly financed bail-out for carbon-intensive companies, and support for uneconomic investments that could drive the planet far beyond the internationally agreed target of limiting global temperature increases to no more than 2C," say the report's authors.
"This is real money which could be put into schools or hospitals. It is simply not economic to invest like this. This is the insanity of the situation. They are diverting investment from economic low-carbon alternatives such as solar, wind and hydro-power and they are undermining the prospects for an ambitious UN climate deal in 2015," said Kevin Watkins, director of the ODI.
The report is important because it shows how reforming fossil fuel subsidies is a critical issue for climate change.
"The IPCC [UN climate science panel] is quite clear about the need to leave the vast majority of already proven reserves in the ground, if we are to meet the 2C goal. The fact that despite this science, governments are spending billions of tax dollars each year to find more fossil fuels that we cannot ever afford to burn, reveals the extent of climate denial still ongoing within the G20," said Oil Change International director Steve Kretzman.
The report further criticises the G20 countries for providing over $520m a year of indirect exploration subsidies via the World Bank group and other multilateral development banks (MDBs) to which they contribute funds.
The authors expressed surprise that about four times as much money was spent on fossil fuel exploration as on renewable energy development.
"In parallel with the rising costs of fossil-fuel exploration and production, the costs of renewable-energy technologies continue to fall rapidly, and the speed of growth in installed capacity of renewables has outperformed predictions since 2000," said the report.
LOAD-DATE: November 11, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
387 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 11, 2014 Tuesday 8:14 AM GMT
Rich countries subsidising oil, gas and coal companies by $88bn a year;
US, UK, Australia giving tax breaks to explore new reserves despite climate advice that fossil fuels should be left buried· Fossil fuel exploration subsidies - mapped
BYLINE: John Vidal
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 642 words
Rich countries are subsidising oil, gas and coal companies by about $88bn (£55.4bn) a year to explore for new reserves, despite evidence that most fossil fuels must be left in the ground if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change.
The most detailed breakdown yet of global fossil fuel subsidies has found that the US government provided companies with $5.2bn for fossil fuel exploration in 2013, Australia spent $3.5bn, Russia $2.4bn and the UK $1.2bn. Most of the support was in the form of tax breaks for exploration in deep offshore fields.
The public money went to major multinationals as well as smaller ones who specialise in exploratory work, according to British thinktank the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and Washington-based analysts Oil Change International.
Britain, says their report, proved to be one of the most generous countries. In the five year period to 2014 it gave tax breaks totalling over $4.5bn to French, US, Middle Eastern and north American companies to explore the North Sea for fast-declining oil and gas reserves. A breakdown of that figure showed over $1.2bn of British money went to two French companies, GDF-Suez and Total, $450m went to five US companies including Chevron, and $992m to five British companies.
Britain also spent public funds for foreign companies to explore in Azerbaijan, Brazil, Ghana, Guinea, India and Indonesia, as well as Russia, Uganda and Qatar, according to the report's data, which is drawn from the OECD, government documents, company reports and institutions.
The figures, published ahead of this week's G20 summit in Brisbane, Australia, contains the first detailed breakdown of global fossil fuel exploration subsidies. It shows an extraordinary "merry-go-round" of countries supporting each others' companies. The US spends $1.4bn a year for exploration in Columbia, Nigeria and Russia, while Russia is subsidising exploration in Venezuela and China, which in turn supports companies exploring Canada, Brazil and Mexico.
"The evidence points to a publicly financed bail-out for carbon-intensive companies, and support for uneconomic investments that could drive the planet far beyond the internationally agreed target of limiting global temperature increases to no more than 2C," say the report's authors.
"This is real money which could be put into schools or hospitals. It is simply not economic to invest like this. This is the insanity of the situation. They are diverting investment from economic low-carbon alternatives such as solar, wind and hydro-power and they are undermining the prospects for an ambitious UN climate deal in 2015," said Kevin Watkins, director of the ODI.
The report is important because it shows how reforming fossil fuel subsidies is a critical issue for climate change.
"The IPCC [UN climate science panel] is quite clear about the need to leave the vast majority of already proven reserves in the ground, if we are to meet the 2C goal. The fact that despite this science, governments are spending billions of tax dollars each year to find more fossil fuels that we cannot ever afford to burn, reveals the extent of climate denial still ongoing within the G20," said Oil Change International director Steve Kretzman.
The report further criticises the G20 countries for providing over $520m a year of indirect exploration subsidies via the World Bank group and other multilateral development banks (MDBs) to which they contribute funds.
The authors expressed surprise that about four times as much money was spent on fossil fuel exploration as on renewable energy development.
"In parallel with the rising costs of fossil-fuel exploration and production, the costs of renewable-energy technologies continue to fall rapidly, and the speed of growth in installed capacity of renewables has outperformed predictions since 2000," said the report.
LOAD-DATE: November 11, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
388 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 11, 2014 Tuesday 12:01 AM GMT
Rich countries subsidising oil, gas and coal companies by $88bn a year;
US, UK, Australia giving tax breaks to explore new reserves despite climate advice that fossil fuels should be left buried
BYLINE: John Vidal
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 642 words
Rich countries are subsidising oil, gas and coal companies by about $88bn (£55.4bn) a year to explore for new reserves, despite evidence that most fossil fuels must be left in the ground if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change.
The most detailed breakdown yet of global fossil fuel subsidies has found that the US government provided companies with $5.2bn for fossil fuel exploration in 2013, Australia spent $3.5bn, Russia $2.4bn and the UK $1.2bn. Most of the support was in the form of tax breaks for exploration in deep offshore fields.
The public money went to major multinationals as well as smaller ones who specialise in exploratory work, according to British thinktank the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and Washington-based analysts Oil Change International.
Britain, says their report, proved to be one of the most generous countries. In the five year period to 2014 it gave tax breaks totalling over $4.5bn to French, US, Middle Eastern and north American companies to explore the North Sea for fast-declining oil and gas reserves. A breakdown of that figure showed over $1.2bn of British money went to two French companies, GDF-Suez and Total, $450m went to five US companies including Chevron, and $992m to five British companies.
Britain also spent public funds for foreign companies to explore in Azerbaijan, Brazil, Ghana, Guinea, India and Indonesia, as well as Russia, Uganda and Qatar, according to the report's data, which is drawn from the OECD, government documents, company reports and institutions.
The figures, published ahead of this week's G20 summit in Brisbane, Australia, contains the first detailed breakdown of global fossil fuel exploration subsidies. It shows an extraordinary "merry-go-round" of countries supporting each others' companies. The US spends $1.4bn a year for exploration in Columbia, Nigeria and Russia, while Russia is subsidising exploration in Venezuela and China, which in turn supports companies exploring Canada, Brazil and Mexico.
"The evidence points to a publicly financed bail-out for carbon-intensive companies, and support for uneconomic investments that could drive the planet far beyond the internationally agreed target of limiting global temperature increases to no more than 2C," say the report's authors.
"This is real money which could be put into schools or hospitals. It is simply not economic to invest like this. This is the insanity of the situation. They are diverting investment from economic low-carbon alternatives such as solar, wind and hydro-power and they are undermining the prospects for an ambitious UN climate deal in 2015," said Kevin Watkins, director of the ODI.
The report is important because it shows how reforming fossil fuel subsidies is a critical issue for climate change.
"The IPCC [UN climate science panel] is quite clear about the need to leave the vast majority of already proven reserves in the ground, if we are to meet the 2C goal. The fact that despite this science, governments are spending billions of tax dollars each year to find more fossil fuels that we cannot ever afford to burn, reveals the extent of climate denial still ongoing within the G20," said Oil Change International director Steve Kretzman.
The report further criticises the G20 countries for providing over $520m a year of indirect exploration subsidies via the World Bank group and other multilateral development banks (MDBs) to which they contribute funds.
The authors expressed surprise that about four times as much money was spent on fossil fuel exploration as on renewable energy development.
"In parallel with the rising costs of fossil-fuel exploration and production, the costs of renewable-energy technologies continue to fall rapidly, and the speed of growth in installed capacity of renewables has outperformed predictions since 2000," said the report.
LOAD-DATE: November 11, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
389 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 11, 2014 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
Republicans Vow to Fight E.P.A. and Approve Keystone Pipeline
BYLINE: By CORAL DAVENPORT
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; WASHINGTON MEMO; Pg. 20
LENGTH: 990 words
WASHINGTON -- The new Republican Congress is headed for a clash with the White House over two ambitious Environmental Protection Agency regulations that are the heart of President Obama's climate change agenda.
Senator Mitch McConnell, the next majority leader, has already vowed to fight the rules, which could curb planet-warming carbon pollution but ultimately shut down coal-fired power plants in his native Kentucky. Mr. McConnell and other Republicans are, in the meantime, stepping up their demands that the president approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline to carry petroleum from Canadian oil sands to refineries on the Gulf Coast.
At this point, Republicans do not have the votes to repeal the E.P.A. regulations, which will have far more impact on curbing carbon emissions than stopping the pipeline, but they say they will use their new powers to delay, defund and otherwise undermine them. Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, a prominent skeptic of climate change and the presumed new chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, is expected to open investigations into the E.P.A., call for cuts in its funding and delay the regulations as long as possible.
The Republicans' new majority in the Senate also increases their leverage in pushing Mr. Obama to approve the pipeline, although it is still unclear if he will do so.
The White House vowed to fight back. ''We know that there will be attempts to impede or scale back our actions,'' John D. Podesta, the senior White House counselor who is leading Mr. Obama's climate agenda, said in a statement on Monday. But he added, ''We're confident we can prevail.''
For Mr. McConnell, fierce opposition to the E.P.A. regulations is more than just a political priority. Kentucky is one of the country's top coal producers, and coal generates over 90 percent of the state's electricity. His re-election campaign was driven by a promise to protect Kentucky from what Republicans called Mr. Obama's ''war on coal.''
''I have heard from Kentuckians across the commonwealth about the pain being inflicted on them by E.P.A.'s unilateral actions,'' Mr. McConnell said in a statement. ''I fully intend to do everything I can do to fight these onerous E.P.A. regulations.''
Mr. Inhofe has gained headlines throughout his career for asserting that the science of human-caused climate change has been falsified. He is the author of ''The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.'' But while Republicans may be able to muster enough of a majority to pass bills that would block or delay the climate rules, it is a near certainty that Mr. Obama would veto such legislation. And Mr. McConnell could not gather the two-thirds majority in the Senate necessary to override a presidential veto.
Still, both Mr. McConnell and Mr. Inhofe are seasoned veterans of congressional procedure, willing and able to deploy a range of tactics designed to slow or hamstring the rules.
Mr. McConnell signaled last week that he, too, wanted to cut the E.P.A.'s budget to keep it from enforcing environmental regulations. Republicans might also include provisions that would repeal the E.P.A. regulations in crucial spending bills -- a tactic that could force a standoff between Mr. Obama and Mr. McConnell over funding the government.
Mr. Inhofe was also expected to use his environmental committee chairmanship to hold hearings grilling Gina McCarthy, the E.P.A. administrator. As chairman of the committee during the Bush administration, Mr. Inhofe did not hesitate to investigate the environmental policies of his own party. ''He was willing to do aggressive oversight during the Bush administration,'' said Andrew Wheeler, a former chief of staff for Mr. Inhofe. ''This time, it's going to be very aggressive.''
But some environmentalists said Mr. Inhofe's assault could backfire politically. ''If the Republican Party doubles down on this brand of climate denial, it will go very badly for them,'' said David Doniger, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group.
Republicans also planned to use their majority to enact legislation requiring the president to approve the Keystone pipeline. Republicans and the oil industry have issued angry calls for construction of the pipeline, which they see as a crucial conduit for oil. Environmentalists have campaigned against the project, which they see as a symbol of environmental degradation. Mr. Obama has delayed a decision on the project for years, as the State Department conducted numerous reviews of its impact on the nation's environment, economy and national security.
The State Department is now awaiting a decision by a Nebraska court on the route of the pipeline before any decision is made.
If Republicans send a Keystone bill to Mr. Obama before the Nebraska verdict, the president is likely to veto it. But people familiar with the president's thinking say that when it comes to climate change policy, Mr. Obama sees the E.P.A. regulations as the centerpiece of his environmental agenda and the Keystone pipeline as a sideline issue.
Asked about the project at a news conference last week, Mr. Obama said, ''I'm going to let that process play out.'' Then he added, ''And I'm just going to gather up the facts.''
Republicans were likely to add a Keystone-approval provision to key spending bills, again daring Mr. Obama to veto such a measure. Mr. Obama appeared willing to veto such measures to protect the climate change rules, which could have an impact on the nation's energy economy for the coming decades. But he may not be willing to do so for the pipeline, a single piece of infrastructure.
''I think there is probably a deal to be had on Keystone,'' said David Goldwyn, who led the State Department's Bureau of Energy Resources in Mr. Obama's first term. ''If Republicans attach Keystone to a budget bill, I don't think he's so principally opposed to it that he would veto it.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/us/politics/republicans-vow-to-fight-epa-and-approve-keystone-pipeline.html
LOAD-DATE: November 11, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Senator Mitch McConnell has said he will fight regulations that would limit carbon emissions. (PHOTOGRAPH BY TODD HEISLER/THE NEW YORK TIMES)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
390 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Dot Earth)
November 11, 2014 Tuesday
In Joint Steps on Emissions, China and U.S. Set Aside 'You First' Approach on Global Warming
BYLINE: ANDREW C. REVKIN
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 2129 words
HIGHLIGHT: China and the United States pledge simultaneous steps to curb emissions of greenhouse gases.
After years of "you first" rhetoric on addressing the unrelenting buildup of climate-warming greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, China and the United States, the world's biggest emitters, agreed in Beijing on Wednesday to intensify domestic steps and international partnerships to rein in their contributions to global warming. Click here for the news coverage in The Times.
With recent new commitments from Europe, this means that countries responsible for more than half of the world's carbon dioxide emissions are accelerating their emissions cutting plans, according to a White House official who spoke only on condition of anonymity. There are plenty of hurdles ahead, but this shift bodes well for the next rounds of negotiations toward a global climate agreement, in Lima next month and Paris a year from now.
China, ending months of uncertainty, said it would pursue policies that result in a peak in its carbon dioxide emissions around 2030, with "the intention" of trying to peak earlier, and to increase the non-fossil fuel share of all energy to around 20 percent by 2030. That would require adding roughly 1,000 gigawatts of renewable and nuclear generation capacity - about equivalent to all of China's coal burning plants today.
For those eager for the details, here's the text of the joint announcement, followed by some enthusiastic comments from David Victor, a longtime climate policy analyst at the University of California, San Diego:
FACT SHEET: U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change and Clean Energy Cooperation
President Obama Announces Ambitious 2025 Target to Cut U.S. Climate Pollution by 26-28 Percent from 2005 Levels
Building on strong progress during the first six years of the Administration, today President Obama announced a new target to cut net greenhouse gas emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. At the same time, President Xi Jinping of China announced targets to peak CO2 emissions around 2030, with the intention to try to peak early, and to increase the non-fossil fuel share of all energy to around 20 percent by 2030.
Together, the U.S. and China account for over one third of global greenhouse gas emissions. Today's joint announcement, the culmination of months of bilateral dialogue, highlights the critical role the two countries must play in addressing climate change. The actions they announced are part of the longer range effort to achieve the deep decarbonization of the global economy over time. These actions will also inject momentum into the global climate negotiations on the road to reaching a successful new climate agreement next year in Paris.
The new U.S. goal will double the pace of carbon pollution reduction from 1.2 percent per year on average during the 2005-2020 period to 2.3-2.8 percent per year on average between 2020 and 2025. This ambitious target is grounded in intensive analysis of cost-effective carbon pollution reductions achievable under existing law and will keep the United States on the right trajectory to achieve deep economy-wide reductions on the order of 80 percent by 2050.
The Administration's steady efforts to reduce emissions will deliver ever-larger carbon pollution reductions, public health improvements and consumer savings over time and provide a firm foundation to meet the new U.S. target.
The United States will submit its 2025 target to the Framework Convention on Climate Change as an "Intended Nationally Determined Contribution" no later than the first quarter of 2015.
The joint announcement marks the first time China has agreed to peak its CO2 emissions. The United States expects that China will succeed in peaking its emissions before 2030 based on its broad economic reform program, plans to address air pollution, and implementation of President Xi's call for an energy revolution.
China's target to expand total energy consumption coming from zero-emission sources to around 20 percent by 2030 is notable. It will require China to deploy an additional 800-1,000 gigawatts of nuclear, wind, solar and other zero emission generation capacity by 2030 - more than all the coal-fired power plants that exist in China today and close to total current electricity generation capacity in the United States.
Building on Progress
In 2009, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were projected to continue increasing indefinitely, but President Obama set an ambitious goal to cut emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels in 2020. Throughout the first term, the Administration took strong actions to cut carbon pollution, including investing more than $80 billion in clean energy technologies under the recovery program, establishing historic fuel economy standards, doubling solar and wind electricity, and implementing ambitious energy efficiency measures.
Early in his second term, President Obama launched an ambitious Climate Action Plan focused on cutting carbon pollution, preparing the nation for climate impacts, and leading internationally. In addition to bolstering first-term efforts to ramp up renewable energy and efficiency, the Plan is cutting carbon pollution through new measures, including:
\x82\xB7 Clean Power Plan: EPA proposed guidelines for existing power plants in June 2014 that would reduce power sector emissions 30% below 2005 levels by 2030 while delivering $55-93 billion in net benefits from improved public health and reduced carbon pollution.
\x82\xB7 Standards for Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles: In February 2014, President Obama directed EPA and the Department of Transportation to issue the next phase of fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles by March 2016. These will build on the first-ever standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles (model years 2014 through 2018), proposed and finalized by this Administration.
\x82\xB7 Energy Efficiency Standards: The Department of Energy set a goal of reducing carbon pollution by 3 billion metric tons cumulatively by 2030 through energy conservation standards issued during this Administration. These measures will also cut consumers' annual electricity bills by billions of dollars.
\x82\xB7 Economy-wide Measures to reduce other Greenhouse Gases: The Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies are taking actions to cut methane emissions from landfills, coal mining, agriculture, and oil and gas systems through cost-effective voluntary actions and common-sense standards. At the same time, the State Department is working to slash global emissions of potent industrial greenhouse gases called HFCs through an amendment to the Montreal Protocol; the Environmental Protection Agency is cutting domestic HFC emissions through its Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program; and, the private sector has stepped up with commitments to cut global HFC emissions equivalent to 700 million metric tons through 2025.
Expanding U.S. and China Climate & Clean Energy CooperationTo further support the achievement of the ambitious climate goals announced today, the United States and China have pledged to strengthen cooperation on climate and clean energy. The two countries are expanding their ongoing and robust program of cooperation through policy dialogue and technical work on clean energy and low greenhouse gas emissions technologies.
The United States and China agreed to:
\x82\xB7 Expand Joint Clean Energy Research and Development: A renewed and expanded commitment to the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center (CERC). This will include:\x83\x98 Extending the CERC mandate for an additional five years from 2016-2020;\x83\x98 Renewing funding for the three existing tracks: building efficiency, clean vehicles, and advanced coal technologies with carbon capture, use and sequestration (CCUS); and\x83\x98 Launching a new track on the interaction of energy and water (the energy/water 'nexus').
\x82\xB7 Advance Major Carbon Capture, Use and Storage Demonstrations: Expanding our work under the Climate Change Working Group (CCWG) and under the CERC, and partnering with the private sector, the United States and China will undertake a major carbon capture and storage project in China that supports a long term, detailed assessment of full-scale sequestration in a suitable, secure underground geologic reservoir. The United States and China will make equal funding commitments to the project and will seek additional funding commitments from other countries and the private sector. In addition, both sides will work to manage climate change by demonstrating a new frontier for CO2 use through a carbon capture, use, and sequestration (CCUS) project that will capture and store CO2 while producing fresh water, thus demonstrating power generation as a net producer of water instead of a water consumer. This CCUS project with Enhanced Water Recovery will eventually inject about 1 million tons of CO2 and create approximately 1.4 million cubic meters of freshwater per year.
\x82\xB7 Enhance Cooperation on Hydroflurocarbons (HFCs): Building on the historic Sunnylands agreement between President Xi and President Obama regarding HFCs, the United States and China will enhance bilateral cooperation to begin phasing down the use of high global warming potential HFCs, including through technical cooperation on domestic measures to promote HFC alternatives and to transition government procurement toward climate-friendly refrigerants.
\x82\xB7 Launch a Climate-Smart/Low-Carbon Cities Initiative: Urbanization is a major trend in the 21st century, and cities worldwide account for a significant percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. In response, the United States and China are establishing a new initiative on Climate-Smart/Low-Carbon Cities under the U.S.-China Climate Change Working Group. Under the initiative, the two countries will share city-level experiences with planning, policies, and use of technologies for sustainable, resilient, low-carbon growth. This initiative will eventually include demonstrations of new technologies for smart infrastructure for urbanization. As a first step, the United States and China will convene a Climate-Smart/Low-Carbon Cities "Summit" where leading cities from both countries will share best practices, set new goals, and celebrate city-level leadership.
\x82\xB7 Promote Trade in Green Goods: The United States announced that Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz will lead a Smart Cities/Smart Growth Business Development Mission to China April 12-17, 2015, focused on green infrastructure, energy efficiency and environmental trade sectors. The mission will highlight the benefits of sustainable urbanization, technologies to support China's air pollution and climate goals, and green buildings opportunities. In addition, USTDA will conduct three reverse trade missions to bring Chinese delegations to see environmental, smart grid, and CCUS technologies in the United States over the next year.
\x82\xB7 Demonstrate Clean Energy on the Ground: U.S. DOE, State, and USTDA will undertake a number of additional pilot programs, feasibility studies, and other collaborative efforts to promote China's energy efficiency and renewable energy goals. These will include expansion of our cooperation on "smart grids" that enable efficient and cost-effective integration of renewable energy technology, as well as the implementation through a U.S. and Chinese private sector commercial agreement of a first-of-its-kind 380 MW concentrating solar plant in China.
Here's David Victor's initial reaction, which echoes my feelings:
This is exactly what is needed - credible pledges by groups of important countries that are rooted in a vision of the effort they will make together. If each country only does what makes sense from its individual interest then the outcome from international diplomacy isn't much more than status quo. Serious cuts in emissions (and all the things that allow that - like a big rise in R and D) require collective action. And you get started on the complex and difficult task of collective action by starting in small groups that are focused on real actions.
This will be criticized as inadequate, and for the long haul it is. But what matters more is that it is credible and this is now the high water mark for serious Chinese pledges and engagement in the international process since China is probably the most pivotal player
The 2030 peak is a big deal. Chinese analysts have been studying that for a few years - in part just catching up to the reality that growth in emissions has slowed significantly. That a now says this publicly means that they are confident they can deliver.
LOAD-DATE: November 12, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
391 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 10, 2014 Monday 8:42 PM GMT
How to invest in social and environmental change - live chat;
Join the experts online on Wednesday 22 October 1pm-2pm BST to explore the role of finance in tackling huge global challenges, from climate change to human rights
BYLINE: Laura Paddison
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 482 words
Money makes the world go round and what you do with that money has a key role in shaping what kind of world that will be.
The appetite for more ethical, sustainable investment seems to be on the rise. Sir Ronald Cohen's recent report set out a pathway to propel social impact investment into the mainstream and called on governments to do more to maximise the potential $1tn in capital that could be mobilised to tackle global problems.
Yet currently, less than $40bn of capital has been committed to impact investment, despite many recent studies which point to ethical funds outperforming their non-ethical peers.
So what can be done to build up the responsible investment market and ensure that money is flowing into the kind of projects that are building a better world?
Join the experts for a live chat
Join us on Wednesday 22 October at 1pm BST for a live chat with a panel of experts to discuss mobilising investment and finance to tackle global challenges from climate change and the environment to human rights and corporate governance.
Topics explored, among others, will include:
Why does investing in social and environmental change matter?
How best to mobilise your money to work for ethical aims?
What is the role of investors, charities, faith communities and others in scaling up ethical finance?
How can investors with ethical values make a difference in more traditional companies?
Panel
Seb Beloe, head of sustainability research at WHEB Asset Management
Charlie Cronick, senior climate adviser at Greenpeace
John Ditchfield, director and adviser at Barchester Green Investment
Hayley Collen, director of ventures at ClearlySo
Gill Lofts, wealth and asset management partner, EY
Lucy Siegle, environmental journalist, Guardian columnist, author and a frequent commentator on television and radio
Hermione Tayor, founding director The DoNation
More to follow
Get involved
The live chat is completely text based and will take place on this page in the comments section below, kicking off on Wednesday 22 October, 1pm BST. You can submit any questions in advance by tweeting them to @GuardianSustBiz using #askGSB or using the form below and we'll put them to the panel on the day.
The live chat coincides with Good Money Week running from 19 to 25 October
The finance hub is funded by EY. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled advertisement feature. Find out more here.
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: November 18, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
392 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 10, 2014 Monday 7:18 PM GMT
Climate change 'will see more UK forces deployed in conflicts around world';
Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, one of the UK's most senior military figures, says global warming is a risk to geopolitical security
BYLINE: Damian Carrington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 690 words
The impacts of climate change will drive violent conflicts that require the deployment of British military forces around the world, according to one of the UK's most senior military figures.
"Climate change will require more deployment of British military in conflict prevention, conflict resolution or responding to increased humanitarian requirements due to extreme weather impacts," said Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti.
"It is posing a risk to geopolitical security, which is a prerequisite for economic growth, good health and wellbeing for all of us."
Morisetti warned that without sharp cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, even military action would not be able to prevent global instability.
The world's governments have pledged to cut carbon and limit warming to 2C to prevent dangerous climate change. But emissions are continuing to rise and current trends point to 4C of warming. "We could probably secure a 2C world," he said. "I think it most unlikely we would be able secure a 4C world."
Morisetti said global warming was a "threat multiplier" that is undermining peace and livelihoods, not just the natural world. "This is as much about blood and treasure as it is about environment."
"The impact resulting in the loss of land and the loss of livelihoods is increasing the stresses in a number of vulnerable countries, countries where food, health and [rising population] are challenges," he said. "All of that is increasing the threat of instability in an already unstable world. We need to act now to manage the risk."
Morisetti, who served in the navy for 37 years and is also a former special envoy for climate change for the foreign secretary, said the increasing floods, droughts and food shortages driven by climate change would affect the UK, even if far away, by disrupting international trade and the import of goods.
"The globalised world we live in [means] we are affected in the UK by events many thousands of miles away," he said. "There is no magic drawbridge we can draw up and the problem goes away."
Morisetti was speaking at public briefing for MPs in Westminster on the risks of climate change, in the wake of a recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The landmark report, compiled by thousands of scientific experts and signed off by 194 nations, said climate change is set to inflict "severe, widespread and irreversible impacts" on people and the natural world unless carbon emissions are cut sharply and rapidly.
Global warming will also double or treble the deaths from heatwaves in the UK, said Prof David Walker, the deputy chief medical officer for England. "The potential impacts on health are very significant," he told the meeting, organised by the thinktank Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit.
In 2003 a heatwave killed 70,000 people in Europe, including 2,000 in the UK. "Looking ahead 30 to 40 years, that will be an average summer for us," said Walker. He said the effect of warming on reducing excess winter deaths was modest by comparison.
Walker said insect-borne diseases were a concern as the UK warmed. "We are seeing a gradual moving north of insects for some quite serious diseases like dengue fever, chikungunya virus and malaria." He said chikungunya had now been seen in Europe and the insects that carry it had been spotted as far north as Belgium.
Walker also said increased flooding would cause mental health problems, as flood victims were two to five times more likely to suffer such illnesses. But he added that acting on climate change would bring health benefits, such as cleaner air and more exercise for people choosing to walk or cycle instead of using cars.
Another climate change impact on the UK would be on food security, said Guy Smith, vice-president of the National Farmers Union, whose own Essex farm is partly below sea level and is the driest spot in Britain.
"If there one word to describe agriculture the last 10 years it is volatility, both in weather and markets and those two things are related."
Guy Shrubshole, at Friends of the Earth, said: "When even the military are worried about global warming, it's time for the rest of Whitehall to wake up."
LOAD-DATE: November 18, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
393 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 10, 2014 Monday 5:45 PM GMT
The real story of US coal: inside the world's biggest coalmine;
Despite Obama's pledge to cut carbon emissions, production at North Antelope Rochelle mine in Wyoming is booming - and climate change is off the agenda. Suzanne Goldenberg gets a rare look inside the biggest coalmine in the world
BYLINE: Report by Suzanne Goldenberg and video by Mae Ryan in North Antelope Rochelle Mine, Wyoming
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1872 words
In the world's biggest coalmine, even a 400 tonne truck looks like a toy. Everything about the scale of Peabody Energy's operations in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming is big and the mines are only going to get bigger - despite new warnings from the United Nations on the dangerous burning of fossil fuels, despite Barack Obama's promises to fight climate change, and despite reports that coal is in its death throes.
At the east pit of Peabody's North Antelope Rochelle mine, the layer of coal takes up 60ft of a 250ft trough in the earth, and runs in an interrupted black stripe for 50 miles.
With those vast, easy-to-reach deposits, Powder River has overtaken West Virginia and Kentucky as the big coalmining territory. The pro-coal Republicans' takeover of Congress in the mid-term elections also favours Powder River.
"You're looking at the world's largest mine," said Scott Durgin, senior vice-president for Peabody's operations in the Powder River Basin, watching the giant machinery at work. "This is one of the biggest seams you will ever see. This particular shovel is one of the largest shovels you can buy, and that is the largest truck you can buy."
By Durgin's rough estimate, the mine occupies 100 square miles of high treeless prairie, about the same size as Washington DC. It contains an estimated three billion tonnes of coal reserves. It would take Peabody 25 or 30 years to mine it all.
But it's still not big enough.
On the conference room wall, a map of North Antelope Rochelle shows two big shaded areas containing an estimated one billion tonnes of coal. Peabody is preparing to acquire leasing rights when they come up in about 2022 or 2024. "You've got to think way ahead," said Durgin.
In the fossil fuel jackpot that is Wyoming, it can be hard to see a future beyond coal. One of the few who can is LJ Turner, whose grandfather and father homesteaded on the high treeless plains nearly a century ago.
Turner, who raises sheep and cattle, said his business had suffered in the 30 years of the mines' explosive growth. Dust from the mines was aggravating pneumonia among his Red Angus calves. One year, he lost 25 calves, he said.
"We are making a national sacrifice out of this region," he said. "Peabody coal and other coal companies want to keep on mining, and mine this country out and leave it as a sacrifice and they want to do it for their bottom line. It's not for the United States. They want to sell it overseas, and I want to see that stopped."
As do some of the most powerful people on the planet. About 120 world leaders met at the United Nations (UN) in September to commit to fighting climate change - many noting that the evidence of warming was occurring in real time. Obama last year proposed new rules that will make it almost impossible to build new coal power plants.
Last week, an exhaustive UN report from the world's top scientists warned of "severe, widespread and irreversible impacts" without dramatic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
Coal is also facing competition from cheap natural gas. Peabody had a very bad year in 2013, losing $525m (£328m) as global demand for coal flatlined.
But despite the promises from Obama and other world leaders the use of coal for energy rose again last year in America, Europe and in Asia - and so did the emissions that cause climate change.
Peabody continued to post losses this year. But extraction and revenue from the Powder River Basin mines went up - and company officials say they could ship out even more coal if they could just get the trains to run on time.
On an average day, 21 long freight trains full of coal leave North Antelope Rochelle bound for 100 power plants across the country. But the company says that's still not enough. As for climate change - that's hardly Peabody's concern.
The company is deeply reluctant to even mention the words. Durgin, who refuses to appear on camera, introduced himself an "active environmentalist, not an environmental activist".
Chris Curran, a Peabody spokesman, refused to talk about climate change or the effects of Obama's efforts to cut carbon emissions on the company's profits. "They are only proposed regulations right now. Nothing is going on," he said.
It takes a call to the senior vice-president of corporate communications, Vic Svec, at the head office in St Louis before the company will discuss climate change. As it turns out, the company's official position is that there is no such thing as human-caused climate change. "We do not question the climate changing. It has been changing for as long as man has recorded history," Svec said. Climate change was a "modelled crisis", he went on.
"What we would say is that there is still far more understanding that is required for any type of impacts of C02 on carbon concerns." Asked whether he saw climate change as a threat, Svec said: "Climate concerns are a threat to the extent that they lead to policies that hurt people."
Peabody's official position on climate science is divorced from scientific reality. But their grasp of the politics of coal clearly is not.
America gets about 40% of its electricity from coal - and by far the biggest share of that coal comes from Powder River. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), its use of coal for energy rose 4.8% last year, in part because of the Arctic blasts of the polar vortex. Carbon dioxide emissions from energy registered one of their steepest rises in the last quarter century.
Australia, where Peabody has three mines and which has the world's second largest reserves of coal, has ramped up production 37% since 2000, helped by up to $3.5bn in government subsidies to the entire fossil fuel industry, a forthcoming report from the Overseas Development Institute and Oil Change International will say.
China has doubled its use of coal over the last decade. India is preparing to open its large coal reserves to foreign mining companies to meet a promise to hook up the 400 million without electricity on to the grid in the next five years.
Coal use in Germany rose last year for the third year in a row, even as the country met its ambitious targets to transition to wind and solar power. Poland has been promoting its coal as an alternative to Russian natural gas.
Overall global coal use rose 3% last year, faster than any other fossil fuel, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy.
That's a disaster in the making, scientists and energy experts say. The International Energy Agency has concluded that two-thirds of all fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground if the world is going to avoid crossing the 2C threshold into dangerous climate change.
Obama agrees. Burning all of those fossil fuels would trigger "dire consequences" for the planet, he told an interviewer last June. "We're not going to be able to burn it all."
But the reality is that Obama has spent the last six years expanding coal, oil and gas production under his "all of the above" energy strategy.
"We quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We've added enough new oil and gas pipeline to encircle the earth and then some," Obama told a rally during his 2012 re-election campaign.
Coal exports have risen on Obama's watch, with mining companies shipping some 100m tonnes a year for each of the last three years. Mining companies are actively pursuing plans to expand coal ports and ship more coal overseas, as a back-up market should the incoming Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules on carbon pollution make it harder to burn coal for electricity.
Meanwhile, the federal government, under Obama, gave away $26m last year in tax breaks to the coal industry, according to the Overseas Development Industry report.
Even if the president wants to do more to curb coal, the Democrats' heavy defeat in the mid-term elections means there will be no pull in that direction from Congress. Mitch McConnell, the Republicans' leader in the Senate ran on a slogan of "Guns, Freedom and Coal".
But even before the mid-terms, campaigners say the rise in coal use under Obama undermines his climate agenda and could wipe out efforts by other countries to fight climate change. Last July, a judge in Colorado agreed, throwing out a mining permit granted by the Bureau of Land Management on the grounds that it would worsen climate change.
What's especially frustrating, campaigners say, is that Powder River Basin coal is on public lands, which means that Obama could intervene to limit future mines.
"This whole notion that you can just address the smoke stack is wishful thinking at the end of the day. Why wouldn't you address the problem from cradle to grave? Why wouldn't you trace it all the way back to where it is being produced rather than just look at the stack?" said Jeremy Nichols, climate and energy director from Wild Earth Guardians.
Campaigners say they see little evidence Obama has tried to curb coal use. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which oversees extraction on public lands, shows little sign of incorporating Obama's climate change directive into future planning.
The agency came in for scathing criticism from government auditors earlier this year who said the BLM gave up too much control to the mining companies, and sold coal too cheaply, to the detriment of US taxpayers.
Those low prices are crucial to Peabody's business model. "It's a high volume, lower priced product and we can still ship literally across the country and compete," Durgin said. In 2012, the company acquired the rights to mine an additional billion tonnes of coal, paying just $1.11 a tonne. Peabody also pays 12.5% royalties to the US federal government, once the coal is mined.
Campaigners say such prices represent a giveaway that allows mining companies like Peabody to keep the prices for Powder River Basin coal artificially low.
Campaigners also argue low coal prices make it harder to ramp up production from renewable energy sources like wind and solar.
"We have never seen leases of more than a billion tonnes and we are starting to see that under the Obama Administration," Nichols said.
The Department of Interior, which has final authority over public lands, refused to respond to multiple requests for comment on its efforts to implement Obama's climate policies.
Instead, a stock email attributed to Jessica Kershaw, the interior spokeswoman, confirmed that Obama was committed to mining more coal.
"As part of the Obama Administration's all-of-the-above energy strategy, the Department of the Interior and specifically the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is committed to the safe and responsible development of both traditional and renewable energy resources on public lands," the email read.
"The BLM also recognizes that coal is a key component of America's comprehensive energy portfolio and the nation's economy. "
The email did not mention climate change.
For Peabody though, the aim is expansion. The company produced 134m tonnes of coal from its combined Powder River Basin mines last year, and was on track to increase production this year, Durgin said.
"I've been asked when is the end of the mine," said Durgin. "I don't know. Economics will tell us that." So long as Obama pursues policies that keep coal cheap, that end is unlikely to come soon.
LOAD-DATE: November 18, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
394 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 10, 2014 Monday 2:00 PM GMT
Your brain on climate change: why the threat produces apathy, not action;
Many people aren't responding to mounting evidence of the huge impacts of climate change. Neuroscience helps explain why - and the key role that businesses can play in responding rationally
BYLINE: Greg Harman
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 1310 words
Voter behavior has long held mysteries for both politicians and psychologists. Why do poor and working-class voters across the US South, for instance, still line up to support conservative candidates whose policies favor the rich, weaken the social-safety net and limit access to affordable health care?
Some in the field of moral psychology have argued that national politics is " more like religion than it is like shopping ". Entrenched notions of cultural identity, in other words, can often be more motivating than short-term policy promises.
But how to explain the paralyzing resistance to climate change action, where the risks approach existential peaks unseen in historical human experience?
Despite spending a record amount of money to sway the mid-term US elections, environmental groups and high-profile donors failed to avert a sweeping Republican victory last week, in which candidates opposing the regulation of greenhouse gases and championing the expansion of tar sands pipelines won big.
It's not as though the facts aren't there: the global scientific community has warned us for years about the present and future impacts of climate change linked to fossil fuel use. Earlier this month, for example, the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report came out, warning of "severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts" if carbon emissions are not halted fast.
"Science has spoken," UN secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon said during the report's release. "Time is not on our side."
With so much at stake, why do people fail to act? What's happening inside their brains?
Thanks to decades of collaboration between neuroscientists and psychologists - bolstered by the advent of imaging technologies, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging, which allows them to see exactly how the brain makes choices - we're beginning to understand just why people behave so irrationally. Part of the reason, according to these studies, is that - for the human brain - climate change simply does not compute.
For one thing, human brains aren't wired to respond easily to large, slow-moving threats.
"Our brain is essentially a get-out-of-the-way machine," Daniel Gilbert, a professor of psychology at Harvard best known for his research into happiness, told audiences at Harvard Thinks Big 2010. "That's why we can duck a baseball in milliseconds."
While we have come to dominate the planet because of such traits, he said, threats that develop over decades rather than seconds circumvent the brain's alarm system. "Many environmentalists say climate change is happening too fast. No, it's happening too slowly. It's not happening nearly quickly enough to get our attention."
Humans are saddled with other shortcomings, too. "Loss aversion" means we're more afraid of losing what we want in the short-term than surmounting obstacles in the distance. Our built-in "optimism bias" irrationally projects sunny days ahead in spite of evidence to the contrary. To compound all that, we tend to seek out information not for the sake of gaining knowledge for its own sake, but to support our already-established viewpoints.
Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Memorial Prize winner in economics, writes in " Thinking, Fast and Slow " that our brains respond most decisively to those things we know for certain. The more uncertainty that comes along (if climate change will bring 2C degrees of warming or 6C; whether hurricanes will intensity in the Pacific and the Atlantic; if the world's governments could even stave off the worst of the predicted disasters if they acted immediately in concert) the less we are able to act on what we know for certain. A study from the University of Rochester in 2012 also confirms this tendency.
"In a way, it's unfair to expect people, homo sapiens, to do this kind of monitoring, to do this kind of decision making, because we're not wired for that," said Elke Weber, a professor of management and psychology at Columbia University.
Considering how irrational individual minds are, business, which is at least "theoretically rational", may have more capacity to lead a climate change response. Once historical notions of the primacy of short-term profitability are swept aside, that is.
"Individuals have a cognitive bias to instant gratification," Tima Bansal, executive director of the Network for Business Sustainability in London, Ontario, Canada, and a professor at the Ivey Business School. "Organizations, which are theoretically rational, have another mindset. Rational behavior means you would take the discounted future cash flow of your earnings, so you would make the long-term investments."
So why are most businesses still stuck in short-term thinking about profitability?
One key challenge, of course, is the pressure from investors seeking quarterly returns. "That's an institutional phenomenon," Bansal said. "We're pushing our organizations to short-termism so I will never make the investment in a new plant, I will never make the investment in training my employees, because really I should pay them as little as I can to make my expectations next quarter."
That thinking is changing, however, as evidenced in an increasing number of companies moving away from quarterly to semi-annual reporting, she said.
She also pointed to conversations occurring within the NBS Leadership Council, a group of sustainability leaders drawn from across Canada's economic sectors, including 3M, Tech, Suncor Energy, and Unilever. The group gathers annually to discuss their most pressing sustainability concerns and challenges, she said. And that conversation has moved quickly in recent years from how to make sustainability profitable to how to motivate consumers and, at the council's September gathering, how to work with competing companies to create social change - "truly dealing with the tragedy of the commons", she said.
More information may not be the key for climate action or to increase sustainability scores, and doomsday message tend to fail across the board, Weber said. What works better is the use of status, metrics and friendly competition. As she put it:
Carbon footprints have been useful because people can improve. You can actually have a positive trajectory and feel good about that. Then you can compete. Everybody likes to have that smiley face; no one likes to have that frowny face. In more rational environments you need metrics. Metrics focusing our attention on these longer time horizon outcomes and goals is what we need because we naturally focus on the here and now. We don't need to promote that.
"Short-termism," Bansal added, "is the bane of sustainability."
So is, it seems, the individual mind.
"Self-control is a huge issue for people, whether it's what we're eating or saving for our retirement," Weber said. Referencing a classic psychological experiment on gratification, she added:
There's a two-year-old in the back of our minds that's still there that we've learned to overrule that wants to have their one marshmallow now rather than wait for two marshmallows. Very few people on this planet want to destroy planet earth. It's just that our other agendas get in the way of things that might have a longer time horizon.
Read more stories like this:
The lonely fight against the biggest environmental problem you've never heard of
The business cost of climate change
What businesses need to know about the latest climate science
Fact checking three new surprising sustainability studies
Science and sustainability goals: what researchers want businesses to know
The Science Behind Sustainability Solutions blog is funded by the Arizona State University Walton Sustainability Solutions Initiatives. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled advertisement feature. Find out more here.
LOAD-DATE: November 18, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
395 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 10, 2014 Monday 2:00 PM GMT
We must manage global warming risks by cutting carbon pollution, top scientists conclude;
The latest IPCC report details the immense risks posed by failing to mitigate global warming
BYLINE: Dana Nuccitelli
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1176 words
Last week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its latest Synthesis Report, summarizing the scientific research on the causes and impacts of global warming, and how we can mitigate its consequences. The report included various graphs showing how we're changing the Earth's climate, and concluded that humans are causing rapid and dangerous global warming.
Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.
Much of the report focused on the risks associated with these rapid climate changes. Fundamentally, climate change is a risk management problem. Even if you're sceptical of the vast body of scientific research pointing to dangerous and potentially catastrophic climate change, there's a very good chance the experts and their supporting evidence are correct and your scepticism is misplaced. The IPCC report put those risks into perspective,
Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which, together with adaptation, can limit climate change risks. Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries, even if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are stopped. The risks of abrupt or irreversible changes increase as the magnitude of the warming increases.
The key word here is "irreversible," and it's used 14 times in the IPCC's latest Summary for Policymakers. For example, if ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica collapse into the ocean, as they've already begun to, we can't take the ice out of the ocean and put it back on land. That lost ice and the sea level rise it causes are irreversible impacts.
Conversely, policies to slow global warming are reversible. A new study by scientists at Duke University found that the widespread rejection of climate science by American political conservatives is in large part due to their distaste for the proposed solutions. Climate contrarians are afraid that climate policies will slow economic growth, despite evidence to the contrary.
However, if it turns out that the sceptics are right in their optimism that the best case climate scenario will occur, and if we go too far in our efforts to reduce carbon pollution, we can easily scale those efforts back. We can't reanimate extinct species, but we can adjust climate policies as needed.
Speaking of species extinctions, the IPCC discussed that serious threat as well,
A large fraction of species face increased extinction risk due to climate change during and beyond the 21st century, especially as climate change interacts with other stressors (high confidence). Most plant species cannot naturally shift their geographical ranges sufficiently fast to keep up with current and high projected rates of climate change in most landscapes; most small mammals and freshwater molluscs will not be able to keep up at the rates projected under RCP4.5 and above in flat landscapes in this century (high confidence).
Marine species are also at risk due to the dual threats of warming oceans and ocean acidification, both of which are caused by carbon pollution from burning fossil fuels.
Since the beginning of the industrial era, oceanic uptake of CO2 has resulted in acidification of the ocean; the pH of ocean surface water has decreased by 0.1 (high confidence), corresponding to a 26% increase in acidity
The IPCC concluded that if we take serious action to reduce fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, we can limit the future increase in ocean acidity to about 16%. If we continue on a business-as-usual fossil fuel dependent path, ocean acidity will increase by around 100%, with dire consequences for marine ecosystems. This will also hurt our fisheries and contribute to food insecurity.
Climate change is projected to undermine food security (Figure SPM.9). Due to projected climate change by the mid-21st century and beyond, global marine species redistribution and marine biodiversity reduction in sensitive regions will challenge the sustained provision of fisheries productivity and other ecosystem services (high confidence)... Global temperature increases of ~4°C or more14 above late-20th century levels, combined with increasing food demand, would pose large risks to food security globally (high confidence).
As these figure below from the report also illustrates, about 70% of studies indicate that crop yields will decline as the Earth continues to warm after 2030, with a high chance that yields could decline by 25% or more by the end of the century if we continue on our current path.
Climate contrarians often argue that we should continue with business as usual and try to adapt to the consequences of global warming. We will have to adapt to some inevitable climate change, but as the IPCC concluded, we must also prevent as much global warming as possible to minimize the associated impacts enough that we will be able to adapt to them.
Substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades can reduce climate risks in the 21st century and beyond, increase prospects for effective adaptation, reduce the costs and challenges of mitigation in the longer term, and contribute to climate-resilient pathways for sustainable development.
Those who preach for climate inaction and adaptation are failing to grasp the basic concepts of risk management. In some cases, those who argue for this high-risk path have failed to manage risks in the past, had to be bailed out by the government, and apparently failed to learn from that experience.
In situations where the government is capable of stepping in to save us from our failure to manage risk, the consequences aren't dire. That's not the case for global warming. Governments can't restore ice sheets, lower sea levels, or reanimate extinct species, but they can adjust climate policies if they turn out to be too aggressive.
And if we cause irreversible and catastrophic climate changes, we can't just emigrate to Mars - we're stuck with the consequences. From a purely risk management perspective, slowing global warming by cutting carbon pollution is a no-brainer, as the IPCC report makes crystal clear.
LOAD-DATE: November 18, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
396 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 10, 2014 Monday 12:04 PM GMT
Q&A wrap: does technology change our brains? And will Direct Action change a thing?;
In a weird and wide-ranging Q&A the panel talked neuroplasticity, WestConnex, and compulsory voting
BYLINE: Adam Brereton
SECTION: COMMENT IS FREE
LENGTH: 919 words
Talk about a wide-ranging episode of Q&A! From whether the internet actually changes our brains, to whether Australia's contribution to fighting climate change will change a thing, to whether 18-year-olds can use their brains...
Technology, digital natives and narcissism
...and a strange question to start off, too! We kicked off with a request from the audience to Baroness Susan Greenfield to resolve a parental dispute about whether technology is changing the brains of "digital natives".
Greenfield says that while the scope of technology to change us is vast, that doesn't mean that nothing can be done. She asked the questioner what his mother wanted in an ideal son. It started to get weird:
"My experience is that... technology has been overwhelmingly positive thing in our lives," The IPA's James Paterson replied. Do you agree? Psychologist and writer Steven Pinker argues that maybe it's our only hope:
[T]he Internet and information technologies are helping us manage, search and retrieve our collective intellectual output at different scales, from Twitter and previews to e-books and online encyclopedias. Far from making us stupid, these technologies are the only things that will keep us smart.
Or maybe not...
Does technology make us narcissists? Greenfield says we naturally like to talk about ourselves, even more than we like monetary rewards, but that online we lack the physical constraints we experience in the real world: "[V]ery few people would actually look someone in the eye and say 'go kill yourself'," Greenfield said.
UN youth delegate Laura John said that new technology opens up opportunities for activism. But is that just clicktivism? And is clicktivism just narcissism? I had hoped they'd get stuck into this question more rather than getting bogged down in the questions about which panellists are qualified to comment.
By this stage the Twitter audience (perhaps just narcissists, who can be sure...) were getting a bit sick of Greenfield dominating the conversation.
Direct Action
The next questioner then got stuck into Greg Hunt about Direct Action, saying it was the political equivalent of "painting rocks white". Guardian blogger Graham Readfearn has said it's like "dodgy laundry powder" that never gets the climate clean.
The incentives approach, expressed in things like the UN clean development mechanism (and now Direct Action), is the winning approach, Hunt says. Tristan Edis wrote a great piece on the question over at Business Spectator a while ago (thanks to climate guru @willozap for the link).
And now we know what keeps Albo up at night. He's worried by two groups in the Coalition: climate sceptics, and "people like Greg" who should know better. Albo brought up Greg Hunt's old thesis, which was titled "A tax to make the polluter pay", saying that Hunt actually supported carbon pricing.
Hunt went on the defensive: "You've just made a false statement on national TV... knowingly, deliberately false."
( You can read his thesis here and make up your own mind. )
Direct Action has been hugely controversial, and has been widely panned by experts on climate change policy. But given the Coalition campaigned primarily on the carbon tax repeal, do you agree with this tweeter?
Return the voting age to 21
The next questioner dropped a huge truth bomb on the panel, saying that kids these days have "no life experience" and are just parroting the views of their parents and teachers. We should raise the voting age back to 21, he said. Laura John got that question and said the broader question is "are Australians engaged with politics" and if so, why not?
Paterson concurred: "you do have to draw the line somewhere. 18 seems to be a reasonably logical age."
Then came the IPA talking points: "I'm more concerned about compulsory voting."
That derailed the whole conversation into a bit of a cul-de-sac; Albo talking about manipulating the vote, Hunt applauding the fact that we don't have to "get out the vote". But Paterson's article in the IPA review raises an interesting point:
[W]hen voters are dissatisfied and disengaged with the offerings from major parties, voluntary voting enables an entirely legitimate and powerful form of political self expression.
Westconnex and East-West Link
A questioner from St Peters in Sydney asks why the WestConnex road project will go ahead when it will "devastate" communities in the inner west. Albo says we need both rail and roads: "The investment should be driven by productivity."
For mine, I think Q&A is at its weakest when it gets bogged down in very specific policy debates like this; Albo and Hunt should save it for question time. Guardian Australia's political editor Lenore Taylor wrote on how the WestConnex project is " paved with Coalition gold " if you'd like to read more, but I agree with Comment is Free contributor Somayya Ismailjee :
The Tailored Brain: conservatives versus progressives "in the brain"
Is it nature or nurture that makes political brains? Or do we just need to communicate more? A good question to polish the night off. Here's an interesting article on a scientific study that said:
We speculate that the association of gray matter volume of the amygdala and anterior cingulate cortex with political attitudes... our findings are consistent with the proposal that political orientation is associated with psychological processes for managing fear and uncertainty.
Baroness Greenfield seemed to agree, saying:
And that's a wrap! See you in the comments thread. Next week's panel should be fantastic:
LOAD-DATE: November 18, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
397 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 10, 2014 Monday 11:15 AM GMT
Ten young film crews. Ten inspiring climate films;
Bernardo Bertolucci heads up the distinguished jury that chose the winners of the Action4Climate documentary competition
BYLINE: Connect4Climate
SECTION: CONNECT4CLIMATE PARTNER ZONE
LENGTH: 911 words
Ten young film crews from ten different countries were chosen as winners in the Action4Climate documentary competition. Their outstanding and unique films inspire the world to take action on climate change.
"These talented young film makers connect to their audience in emotional and powerful ways about the dangers of climate change. They have done serious, important work, which shows that climate change could result in a world that is unrecognisable today, and that we need act now to protect the planet for future generations." Jim Yong Kim, president, World Bank Group.
The Action4Climate competition was launched in early 2014 by Connect4Climate, the global climate change communications programme. It attracted hundreds of entries from all around the world. Italian film director and screenwriter, Bernardo Bertolucci, chaired a renowned jury of filmmakers tasked with choosing winning films in two age categories.
"We were amazed by the originality of the stories and the genuine concern shown by these young film makers about the effects of climate change. They described the effects of climate change from hundreds of different points of view. Selecting winners was an almost impossible task," said Bertolucci.
In the 18-35 age category, the $15,000 top prize went to the Portuguese filmmaker Gonçalo Tocha with his provocative film The Trail of a Tale. This inspiring story revolves around a letter written in the future to society today.
Dobrin Kashavelov from Bulgaria won second place cash prizes of $10,000 with Global Warning, a harrowing film about the catastrophic effects on survivors of last year's typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines.
Third place $5,000 prize was awarded to American filmmaker Nathan Dappen for Snows of the Nile, a documentary following Nathan's adventures uncovering indisputable evidence of the fast disappearing glaciers of Uganda's mountains of the moon.
"I am immensely proud to be chosen as the winner and really hope my film helps people realize that we need to act now to protect our future," said Tocha.
In the younger 14-17 age group, The Violin Player took top spot. This beautifully animated film was the brainchild of Francina Ramos, a young Argentinian filmmaker and her co-producer Benjamin Braceras.
Second place went to Facing the Flood by Constantin Huet from Switzerland, an investigative account of the changing conditions in Greenland and the Maldives. Georgia's Tura Tegerashivili was awarded third place for the whimsical It's Easy if You Try. All prize winners receive production equipment and software to help them hone their skills and talents and inspire them to create more climate change stories.
"What an amazing honor! I am so excited. I hope The Violin Player makes people want to stand up and tackle climate change," said Ramos.
The jury is made up of filmmakers Atom Egoyan, Marc Forster, Mika Kaurismaki, Fernando Meirelles, Mira Nair, Bob Rafelson, Walter Salles, Pablo Trapero and Wim Wenders, along with film executives Rose Kuo and Cynthia Lopez, and World Bank vice president and Special Envoy for Climate Change, Rachel Kyte. They felt the standard in the competition was so high that a special prize was awarded to Balud by Panx Solajes from the Philippines, for his creative personal reflection devastating floods caused by climate change.
Connect4Climate also decided that two submissions should be recognised for their ability to present local stories that also have a profound global impact. Special Connect4Climate prizes are awarded to Tinau from UK/Kiribati producer Victoria Burns, exploring the grave concerns of small island nations such as Kiribati, and The Change, a touching portrayal of the effects on young people in a Vietnamese coastal community made by filmmakers Ha Uyen, Huong Tra, Quang Dung and Quang Phuc. A People's Choice Prize voted for by the public was won by a team from Brazil for their film Pachamama depicting the effects of global warming in Sao Paulo.
Prizes for the competition were graciously provided by Edison, the Italian power company, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. In addition, Vimeo, the video sharing website, is enthusiastically donating Vimeo Plus accounts for one year to all the finalists from developing countries.
The winners were announced on 30 October 2014 at the Sustainia Award Ceremony in the Royal Theater, Copenhagen, where Connect4Climate's partner Sustainia is celebrating the creation of new solutions for sustainable living. Also in Copenhagen, on 2 November 2014 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will present the Synthesis Report of the Fifth Assessment Report.
"Connect4Climate was tremendously excited by the amount of interest shown in the competition from around the world. It demonstrates the level of concern shown by creative young people and their desire to be involved directly in exposing climate problems and finding lasting solutions. We were also gratified to experience the seamless coming together of international organizations, the private sector and civil society to support and promote the competition," said Lucia Grenna, programme manager, Connect4Climate.
It is envisaged that the high standard of the Action4Climate documentaries will help promote greater climate change awareness and inspire viewers to action.
The winning films can all be viewed at www.Action4Climate.org
Content managed and produced by Connect4Climate
LOAD-DATE: November 18, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
398 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 10, 2014 Monday 12:00 AM GMT
On climate change, Australia will be left behind by China, the US and the EU;
Australia should be showing leadership on climate at the G20. Instead, as 39 countries put a price on carbon, we've just repealed ours
BYLINE: Tim Flannery
SECTION: COMMENT IS FREE
LENGTH: 474 words
Australia's most important trading partners and allies, such as China, the US and the European Union are strengthening their responses to climate change. Australia will be left in the wake of these big economies (and big emitters), according to the latest Climate Council report Lagging Behind: Australia and the Global Response to Climate Change.
Australia's retreat from being a global leader at tackling climate change is as impressive as our recent performances at the cricket. Looking on the bright side, even countries not known for their sunshine like Germany are going solar in a big way. Global momentum is building as more and more countries invest in renewable energy and put a price on carbon.
Thirty-nine countries are putting a price on carbon. The EU and China (now with seven pilot schemes up and running) are home to the two largest carbon markets in the world, together covering over 3,000m tonnes (MtCO 2) of carbon dioxide emissions. There's also plenty of action in the US: 10 states with a combined population of 79 million are now using carbon pricing to drive down emissions, including California, the world's ninth largest economy.
Yet, here in Australia, we now hold the dubious distinction of being the first country to repeal an operating and effective carbon price.
Like carbon pricing, support for renewables is also advancing worldwide. In the last year, more renewable energy capacity was added than fossil fuels. Globally renewables attracted greater investment with US$192bn spent on new renewable power compared to US$102bn in fossil fuel plants.
China is leading the charge on expanding renewable capacity. At the end of last year, China had installed a whopping 378GW of renewable energy capacity - about a quarter of renewables capacity installed worldwide, and over seven times Australia's entire grid-connected power capacity. China continues to work towards ambitious capacity targets for 439GW of renewables by 2015 and 900GW by 2020. China is also acting to limit coal consumption in an effort to tackle air pollution and climate change.
Despite over 1m households installing solar power on their rooftops, uncertainty looms large over Australia's renewable energy target. This uncertainty is stifling investment - 70% less in 2014 compared with the previous year. Australia's commitment to tackling climate change resembles a teenager's resolve to get out of bed in the morning.
The federal government's shiny new Direct Action plan, with a lofty 5% emissions reduction target, has been described by some as a "Mickey Mouse" scheme. Yet as the host of the upcoming G20 Summit in Brisbane, rather than shirtfronting other member countries, Australia has an ideal opportunity to work with the international community and join the big guns - China, the US and the EU - in making progress on climate change.
LOAD-DATE: November 18, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
399 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 10, 2014 Monday
Late Edition - Final
Climate Tools Seeking to Take Nature in Hand
BYLINE: By HENRY FOUNTAIN
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; THE BIG FIX; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 2284 words
UTRECHT, the Netherlands -- The solution to global warming, Olaf Schuiling says, lies beneath our feet.
For Dr. Schuiling, a retired geochemist, climate salvation would come in the form of olivine, a green-tinted mineral found in abundance around the world. When exposed to the elements, it slowly takes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Olivine has been doing this naturally for billions of years, but Dr. Schuiling wants to speed up the process by spreading it on fields and beaches and using it for dikes, pathways, even sandboxes. Sprinkle enough of the crushed rock around, he says, and it will eventually remove enough CO2 to slow the rise in global temperatures.
''Let the earth help us to save the earth,'' said Dr. Schuiling, who has been pursuing the idea single-mindedly for several decades and at 82 is still writing papers on the subject from his cluttered office at the University of Utrecht.
Once considered the stuff of wild-eyed fantasies, such ideas for countering climate change -- known as geoengineering solutions, because they intentionally manipulate nature -- are now being discussed seriously by scientists. The National Academy of Sciences is expected to issue a report on geoengineering later this year.
That does not mean that such measures, which are considered controversial across the political spectrum, are likely to be adopted anytime soon. But the effects of climate change may become so severe that geoengineering solutions could attract even more serious consideration. Some scientists say significant research should begin now.
Dr. Schuiling's idea is one of several intended to reduce levels of CO2, the main greenhouse gas, so the atmosphere will trap less heat. Other approaches, potentially faster and more doable but riskier, would create the equivalent of a sunshade around the planet by scattering reflective droplets in the stratosphere or spraying seawater to create more clouds over the oceans. Less sunlight reaching the earth's surface would mean less heat to be trapped, resulting in a quick lowering of temperatures.
No one can say for sure whether geoengineering of any kind would work. And many of the approaches are seen as highly impractical. Dr. Schuiling's, for example, would take decades to have even a small impact, and the processes of mining, grinding and transporting the billions of tons of olivine needed would produce enormous carbon emissions of their own.
Beyond the practicalities, many people view the idea of geoengineering as abhorrent -- a last-gasp, Frankenstein-like approach to climate change that would distract the world from the goal of eliminating the emissions that are causing the problem in the first place. The climate is a vastly complex system, so manipulating temperatures may also have consequences, like changes in rainfall, that could be catastrophic or benefit one region at the expense of another.
Critics also worry that geoengineering could be used unilaterally by one nation, creating another source of geopolitical worries, or could aggravate tensions between rich and poor nations over who causes and who suffers from climate change. Even conducting research on some of these ideas, they say, risks opening a Pandora's box.
''There's so much potential here for taking energy away from real responses to climate change,'' said Jim Thomas of the ETC Group, a research organization that opposes geoengineering because of its potential impact on poor countries. As for experimentation to test some of the ideas, he said, ''it shouldn't happen.''
But a small community of scientists, policy experts and others argue that the world must start to think about geoengineering -- how it might be done and at what cost, who would do it and how it would be governed.
''There may come to be a choice between geoengineering and suffering,'' said Andy Parker of the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies in Potsdam, Germany. ''And how we make that choice is crucial.''
Mimicking a Volcano
In 1991, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed the largest cloud of sulfur dioxide gas ever measured into the high atmosphere. The gas quickly formed tiny droplets of sulfuric acid, which acted like minuscule mirrors and reflected some of the sun's rays back into space. For the next three years, average worldwide temperatures fell by more than one degree.
One geoengineering approach would mimic this kind of volcanic action by spraying sulfuric acid droplets into the stratosphere. Planes, modified to fly higher than commercial flights, might be one way to do this at a relatively low cost. Giant tethered balloons might be another.
The dimming would not be noticeable, but computer simulations have shown that it would have a near-immediate effect on temperatures; how much would depend on the quantity and size of the droplets.
Droplets, however, do not last, so spraying would have to be continuous, and the quantities would have to be increased, in part to offset continuing carbon emissions. The process also would do nothing to remove carbon dioxide that has been absorbed by seawater and poses a threat to the oceanic food chain.
David Keith, a researcher at Harvard University and a leading expert on the subject, has suggested that if this kind of geoengineering, called solar radiation management, or S.R.M., is ever undertaken, it should be done slowly and carefully, so it could be halted if damaging weather patterns or other problems arose. The goal should only be to slow the rate that the atmosphere is warming under climate change, he said, not to reverse it.
Dr. Keith said that geoengineering and efforts to cut carbon emissions by reducing the dependence on coal and other fossil fuels were not mutually exclusive.
''We have to cut emissions,'' he said. ''Pretty much independent of that, we might want to do S.R.M.''
He and others argue that, rather than discouraging work to roll back emissions, discussions of geoengineering may actually encourage such efforts. If people realize that the dangers of climate change are such that geoengineering is being considered, they may work harder to avoid the need for it. ''It forces people to think more about climate,'' Dr. Keith said.
He added that some of the latest computer simulations showed that the effects of this kind of geoengineering would be relatively equal from region to region globally.
But some critics of geoengineering are skeptical that any impact would be balanced. People in underdeveloped countries are affected by climate change that has largely been caused by the actions of industrialized countries. So why should they trust that scattering droplets in the sky -- the brainchild of scientists from those same countries -- would help them?
Pablo Suarez, who works in underdeveloped countries as associate director of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Center, said he encountered this distrust when he told people about the idea.
''There is a range of reactions, the most noticeable one being, 'Who do they think they are that they can make decisions on my behalf?' '' Dr. Suarez said.
''It is very understandable,'' he added. ''No one likes to be the rat in someone else's laboratory.''
The Green Rock Gospel
Ideas to remove carbon dioxide from the air, like Dr. Schuiling's rock-spreading scheme, provoke less alarm. While they have issues of their own -- olivine, for example, contains small amounts of metals that could contaminate the environment -- as a geoengineering method they would work far more slowly and indirectly, affecting the climate over decades by altering the atmosphere.
Dr. Schuiling has been talking for years about his idea to anyone who will listen, preaching the gospel of the rock throughout the Netherlands. As a result, some residents have taken action, and the country has become something of an olivine hotbed. If you know where to look, you can see the crushed rock on paths, in gardens and in play areas.
Eddy Wijnker, a former sound engineer who was inspired by a newspaper article about Dr. Schuiling's work, created greenSand, a company in the small town of Maasland that sells olivine sand for home or commercial use; it will soon receive a shipload from a mine in Spain. The company also sells ''green sand certificates'' that pay for spreading the sand along highways.
Dr. Schuiling's doggedness has also spurred research. At the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research in Yerseke, on an arm of the North Sea, Francesc Montserrat, an ecologist, is investigating the idea of spreading olivine on the seabed. Not far away in Belgium, researchers at the University of Antwerp are studying the effects of olivine on crops like barley and wheat.
But critics, including some in the geoengineering community, say that plans like Dr. Schuiling's would work too slowly, if at all, and that undertaking them on a global scale would be close to impossible. Removing carbon dioxide from the air might be useful for some limited purposes -- Dr. Keith, the Harvard researcher, has a company that is developing a machine to do so -- but probably not for saving the planet.
Dr. Schuiling, who can be blunt in dismissing his critics, sees things differently. Industry extracts and transports huge quantities of coal, oil and gas, he notes, so if society decided that geoengineering was necessary, why couldn't it do the same with olivine? The annual amount needed, equivalent to about 3,000 Hoover Dams, is available around the world and is within the limits of modern large-scale mining. ''It is not something unimaginable,'' he said.
And, he adds, there's no harm in starting small. Every bit of crushed olivine spread on the ground makes a little headway in reducing CO2 levels in the air.
''When I started, I was a nutty professor,'' Dr. Schuiling said. But when he gives a talk nowadays, ''the first question after I finish is, 'Why don't we do it?' ''
A Call for Research
Few people say, ''Why don't we do it?'' about strategies to block some of the sunlight reaching the earth. Even those who are willing to consider the idea of solar geoengineering say they hope it will never be needed.
But many in the geoengineering community see a need for more research. Computer simulations go only so far, they say. Physical experiments, including ones conducted in the air, must be undertaken, with proper oversight.
''If we're going to make any rational decisions about the dangers and potential benefits of S.R.M. technology, we need to have at least the basic data,'' said Jason Blackstock, who studies the science and policy implications of geoengineering at University College London.
Very little money is set aside worldwide for geoengineering research. But even the suggestion of conducting field experiments can cause an uproar.
''People like lines in the sand to be drawn, and there's a very obvious one which says, fine, if you want to do stuff on a desktop or a lab bench, that's O.K.,'' said Matthew Watson, a researcher at the University of Bristol in Britain. ''But as soon as you start going out into the real world, then that's different.''
Dr. Watson knows all about those lines in the sand: He led a geoengineering research project, financed by the British government, that included a relatively benign test of one proposed technology. In 2011, the researchers planned to tether a balloon about a half-mile in the sky and try to pump a small amount of plain water up to it through a hose.
The proposal prompted protests in Britain, was delayed for half a year and then canceled, although ostensibly for other reasons.
In the United States, Dr. Keith and his colleagues have proposed a balloon experiment that would test the effect of sulfate droplets on atmospheric ozone -- a potential trouble spot for solar engineering. Dr. Keith receives some private money from Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, for his geoengineering research, but says that for this experiment, which could cost $10 million or more, most of the funds would have to come from the government, for reasons of accountability and transparency.
But the prospects of government support for any kind of geoengineering test seem slim right now in the United States, where many politicians deny that climate change is even occurring.
''There's a lot of understanding that we should be working on this,'' said Jane Long, formerly with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and now a contributing scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund. ''The biggest damper is climate politics.''
Even the White House does not talk about the subject. The president's science adviser, John P. Holdren, discussed geoengineering in response to an interviewer's question in 2009, but has not mentioned it publicly since. When asked recently about the subject, a spokesman for his office had no comment for the record.
The coming report on the subject by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences is expected to recommend that scientists prepare to study the next large volcanic eruption, whenever it happens, with an eye on better understanding the effects of sulfuric acid droplets. Even if the academy does not recommend a bigger research program, including field experiments, the report may spur discussion.
''The conventional wisdom is that the right doesn't want to talk about this because it acknowledges the problem,'' said Rafe Pomerance, a consultant and a former environmental official in the State Department during the Clinton administration. ''And the left is worried about the impact on emissions.''
Getting the topic out in the open, then, would be a good thing, Mr. Pomerance said. ''It's going to take a little more time,'' he added. ''But it's coming.''
The Big Fix: Articles in this series are examining potential solutions to climate change.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/science/earth/climate-tools-seek-to-bend-natures-path.html
LOAD-DATE: November 10, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: Any plan to spread olivine would work too slowly, if at all, to influence climate change, critics say. (PHOTOGRAPH BY ILVY NJIOKIKTJIEN FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)
A playground in Arnhem, the Netherlands, with a surface of olivine, a green-tinted mineral that takes CO 2 from the atmosphere. The geochemist Olaf Schuiling, left, advocates spreading it to slow the rise in global temperatures. An article about his work inspired Eddy Wijnker, below left, to start selling olivine sand. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY JASPER JUINEN FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES
ILVY NJIOKIKTJIEN FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A6) GRAPHICS: Turning Down the Heat
THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
POSSIBLE WAYS TO REDUCE THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT: (A6)
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News; Series
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
400 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 10, 2014 Monday
Late Edition - Final
Obama Arrives in China on Trip With Complex Agenda
BYLINE: By MARK LANDLER
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 8
LENGTH: 969 words
BEIJING -- President Obama arrived here on Monday morning for a three-day visit that will capture the complexities of the United States-China relationship: the tensions of a rising power confronting an established one, as well as the promise that the world's two largest economies could find common cause on issues like climate change.
Touching down under skies that were a government-mandated blue -- the authorities idled factories and kept vehicles off the roads to clear the air -- Mr. Obama plunged into a hectic schedule that mixed the solemn rituals of a state visit with the deal-making of an economic summit meeting.
Mr. Obama's visit, his second as president, began on a promising note on Saturday with North Korea's release of two Americans held there. Administration officials did not speculate about whether the release was timed to the visit, but it sent an unmistakably conciliatory message on the eve of talks that are certain to include the nuclear-armed rogue state.
The centerpiece of the visit will be Mr. Obama's session with President Xi Jinping in the Great Hall of the People on Wednesday, where he will encounter a Chinese leader who has moved boldly to restore the primacy of the Communist Party with a radical anticorruption campaign, an overhaul of China's economy and a crackdown on dissent.
Before that, though, Mr. Obama will meet with Joko Widodo, a plain-spoken populist whose recent election as president of Indonesia is a vivid contrast to the authoritarian ambitions of Mr. Xi. Mr. Widodo, like Mr. Obama, is here for a meeting of Pacific Rim leaders.
Later on Monday, Mr. Obama was to speak to business executives from that group, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. He will also meet leaders from 11 countries involved in trying to create the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an ambitious American-led trade pact that would be a central pillar of Mr. Obama's ''strategic pivot'' to Asia.
The White House has methodically lowered expectations that a deal will be reached in Beijing. But the fact that Mr. Obama is meeting the other leaders so early in the trip -- combined with recent reports of progress in talks with one of the key participants, Japan -- has prompted trade analysts to speculate that there could be some kind of a surprise.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership does not include China, so Mr. Obama's main commercial proposal for the Chinese will be a new bilateral investment treaty between the countries. Economists said it could be the most significant opening of the Chinese market for American companies since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.
American businesspeople view the treaty as an indicator of how serious Mr. Xi is about overhauling the Chinese economy, after a start that many describe as shaky. It would require the Chinese to open dozens of sensitive markets, some that remained closed to American companies, or required Chinese partners.
''Optimism is moderating in the American business community,'' said John Frisbie, the president of the U.S.-China Business Council. ''The reason for that softening is policy uncertainty. What's the reform policy direction? We've seen little tangible impact so far.''
Progress on an investment treaty could smooth other sources of friction in the relationship, particularly the systematic hacking of American companies by the Chinese. A joint working group set up to tackle cybercrime abruptly stopped meeting after American prosecutors filed hacking charges against several Chinese military officers.
Mr. Obama raised the issue of cybercrime with Mr. Xi at their first leader-to-leader meeting at the Sunnylands estate in Rancho Mirage, Calif., in June 2013. By all accounts, that conversation did not go well, and the dialogue has only gotten testier since then.
The two leaders did sign an agreement at that meeting to cut hydrofluorocarbon emissions, and the White House hopes to build on that this week in broader discussions between Mr. Obama and Mr. Xi about climate change. John Podesta, a senior adviser to the president who oversees climate change policy, is part of the delegation.
The goal would be for China and the United States to announce a common position on new emissions-reductions targets before the next climate change talks in Paris next year. While it is unlikely that either country will announce specific targets until next March, even a general statement of commitment by the two leaders could galvanize the process.
Shortly before Air Force One took off for Beijing, after midnight on Sunday, administration officials offered additional details on the secret trip to Pyongyang made by the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., which resulted in the freeing of two Americans who had been imprisoned in North Korea, Kenneth Bae and Matthew Todd Miller.
Mr. Clapper, one official said, carried a brief letter to North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, certifying that he was the president's personal emissary and that his sole mission was to obtain the release of the two men. He did not meet with Mr. Kim, dealing with other officials.
Mr. Clapper, the official said, was chosen by the White House after a surprise overture by the North Koreans because he was a security official, not a diplomat, which kept the trip out of the realm of diplomacy.
''While this addresses an important irritant in our relationship,'' said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under ground rules imposed by the White House, ''it certainly doesn't address the underlying concerns we have about their nuclear program.''
There is a precedent for timing such a release to the visit of a prominent American: Last December, North Korea freed an 85-year-old military veteran from Palo Alto, Calif., Merrell Newman, during a visit to South Korea by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/world/asia/obama-arrives-in-china-on-trip-with-complex-agenda.html
LOAD-DATE: November 10, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
401 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Dot Earth)
November 10, 2014 Monday
How 'Solution Aversion' and Global Warming Prescriptions Polarize the Climate Debate
BYLINE: ANDREW C. REVKIN
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 997 words
HIGHLIGHT: A tendency of climate campaigners to bundle science and preferred solutions runs up against “solution aversion,” a study finds
Anyone eager to understand, and move past, the deep political polarization around global warming would do well to explore the findings in "Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief," published in the November issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The paper is behind a subscription wall, but a Duke University news release does a fine job laying out the basic findings, as does Chris Mooney, getting into gear in his new blogging position at the Washington Post. Here's an excerpt from the Duke release, followed by more from Mooney and some thoughts from me on how this work echoes points explored here for many years:
From the release:
A new study from Duke University finds that people will evaluate scientific evidence based on whether they view its policy implications as politically desirable. If they don't, then they tend to deny the problem even exists.
"Logically, the proposed solution to a problem, such as an increase in government regulation or an extension of the free market, should not influence one's belief in the problem. However, we find it does," said co-author Troy Campbell, a Ph.D. candidate at Duke's Fuqua School of Business. "The cure can be more immediately threatening than the problem."...
"The goal was to test, in a scientifically controlled manner, the question: Does the desirability of a solution affect beliefs in the existence of the associated problem? In other words, does what we call 'solution aversion' exist?" Campbell said.
"We found the answer is yes. And we found it occurs in response to some of the most common solutions for popularly discussed problems."...
For climate change, the researchers conducted an experiment to examine why more Republicans than Democrats seem to deny its existence, despite strong scientific evidence that supports it.
One explanation, they found, may have more to do with conservatives' general opposition to the most popular solution - increasing government regulation - than with any difference in fear of the climate change problem itself, as some have proposed.
Participants in the experiment, including both self-identified Republicans and Democrats, read a statement asserting that global temperatures will rise 3.2 degrees in the 21st century. They were then asked to evaluate a proposed policy solution to address the warming.
When the policy solution emphasized a tax on carbon emissions or some other form of government regulation, which is generally opposed by Republican ideology, only 22 percent of Republicans said they believed the temperatures would rise at least as much as indicated by the scientific statement they read.
But when the proposed policy solution emphasized the free market, such as with innovative green technology, 55 percent of Republicans agreed with the scientific statement.
For Democrats, the same experiment recorded no difference in their belief, regardless of the proposed solution to climate change.
The study, according to Duke, found a similar pattern in liberal-leaning gun-control proponents when judging data on certain violent crimes:
The researchers found liberal-leaning individuals exhibited a similar aversion to solutions they viewed as politically undesirable in an experiment involving violent home break-ins. When the proposed solution called for looser versus tighter gun-control laws, those with more liberal gun-control ideologies were more likely to downplay the frequency of violent home break-ins.
On Twitter earlier today, Dan Kahan of Yale University (please read Paul Voosen's profile of him!) noted how the findings align with conclusions from this 2012 study: "Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication."
I encourage you to read Chris Mooney's piece on the new research in the context of other behavioral work. It's aptly titled, "Conservatives don't hate climate science. They hate the left's climate solutions."
Mooney concludes with this point:
[I]t is very useful to bear in mind that often, when we appear to be debating science and facts, what we're really disagreeing about is something very different.
For many years, some of the most prominent climate campaigners and activist climate scientists have had the habit of mashing up climate science findings and their preferred solutions - a habit that I've long seen as counterproductive.
I encourage you to look back at my 2011 post on the perils in mashing up "basic science with policy prescriptions":
It's hard to see disengaged citizens swayed by a conversation that, in one instance this afternoon, swung from discussions of greenhouse physics by NASA's Drew Shindell to Tara DePorte of the Human Impacts Institute saying, "We need strong global governance."
This is the same trap that climate campaigners, and some climate scientists, have fallen into for years, to my mind -- mashing up climate science and pre-selected energy solutions in one conversation, sometimes a single sentence....
Here's more from 2009:
Kenneth Caldeira, a climate specialist whom I've interviewed about ocean acidification, geo-engineering, climate tipping points and other questions, says there is substantial peril in "describing policy prescriptions as if they're a scientific conclusion."
But there are positive lessons here, too, of course. As the "Six Americas" surveys run by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication have shown, there's plenty of common ground on energy innovation and incentives for efficiency, so it's possible to have a constructive conversation on global warming science and at least some solutions across a range of ideologies.
And, of course, this doesn't mean that those with strong views about the merits of a carbon tax or climate treaty or other solution involving strong governance should clam up. They just might do better by speaking in two sentences instead of trying to mash the science and a particular prescription into a single sound bite.
LOAD-DATE: November 10, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
402 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 9, 2014 Sunday 11:42 PM GMT
On climate change, Australia will be left behind by China, the US and the EU;
Australia should be showing leadership on climate at the G20. Instead, as 39 countries put a price on carbon, we've just repealed ours
BYLINE: Tim Flannery
SECTION: COMMENT IS FREE
LENGTH: 472 words
Australia's most important trading partners and allies, such as China, the US and the European Union are strengthening their responses to climate change. Australia will be left in the wake of these big economies (and big emitters), according to the latest Climate Council report Lagging Behind: Australia and the Global Response to Climate Change.
Australia's retreat from being a global leader at tackling climate change is as impressive as our recent performances at the cricket. Looking on the bright side, even countries not known for their sunshine like Germany are going solar in a big way. Global momentum is building as more and more countries invest in renewable energy and put a price on carbon.
Thirty-nine countries are putting a price on carbon. The EU and China (now with seven pilot schemes up and running) are home to the two largest carbon markets in the world, together covering over 3,000m tonnes (MtCO 2) of carbon dioxide emissions. There's also plenty of action in the US: 10 states with a combined population of 79m are now using carbon pricing to drive down emissions, including California, the world's 9 thlargest economy.
Yet, here in Australia, we now hold the dubious distinction of being the first country to repeal an operating and effective carbon price.
Like carbon pricing, support for renewables is also advancing worldwide. In the last year, more renewable energy capacity was added than fossil fuels. Globally renewables attracted greater investment with US$192bn spent on new renewable power compared to US$102bn in fossil fuel plants.
China is leading the charge on expanding renewable capacity. At the end of last year, China had installed a whopping 378GW of renewable energy capacity - about a quarter of renewables capacity installed worldwide, and over seven times Australia's entire grid-connected power capacity. China continues to work towards ambitious capacity targets for 439GW of renewables by 2015 and 900GW by 2020. China is also acting to limit coal consumption in an effort to tackle air pollution and climate change.
Despite over 1m households installing solar power on their rooftops, uncertainty looms large over Australia's renewable energy target. This uncertainty is stifling investment - 70% less in 2014 compared with the previous year. Australia's commitment to tackling climate change resembles a teenager's resolve to get out of bed in the morning.
The federal government's shiny new Direct Action plan, with a lofty 5% emissions reduction target, has been described by some as a "Mickey Mouse" scheme. Yet as the host of the upcoming G20 Summit in Brisbane, rather than shirtfronting other member countries, Australia has an ideal opportunity to work with the international community and join the big guns - China, the US and the EU - in making progress on climate change.
LOAD-DATE: November 18, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
403 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 9, 2014 Sunday 1:00 PM GMT
Australia told it should aim for 40% cut in greenhouse gases by 2025;
The Climate Institute also says the world needs to know how Australia will calculate its target
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 607 words
Australia needs to tell the world how it will calculate its medium-term greenhouse target for release early next year and should be looking at a 40% reduction by 2025, the Climate Institute think tank says.
As revealed by Guardian Australia, US and European Union negotiators have also been unsuccessfully lobbying Australia to back a pledge by G20 leaders that their post-2020 greenhouse emission reduction targets will be unveiled early, to improve the chances of a deal at the United Nations meeting in Paris on global greenhouse reductions after 2020.
But Australia has so far said only that it would "consider its post-2020 target as part of the review ... in 2015 on Australia's international targets and settings", taking into account what trading partners promise, and has been resisting discussion of climate change at the G20 on the grounds that the meeting should focus on its central economic agenda.
The Climate Institute used several methods to calculate a country's "fair share" of emission reductions to try to contain global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.
It found Australia will need to promise to reduce net emissions by at least 40% of 2000 levels by 2025 and 65% to 75% by 2035.
And as governments around the world prepare to announce their targets in the first few months of next year, the institute is calling on the Australian government to explain how it will undertake its own calculations and when it will unveil its policy.
The government's "Direct Action" climate policy to reduce emissions with $2.5bn worth of competitive government grants to businesses and organisations is intended to meet the target of cutting Australia's greenhouse gases by 5% by 2020. The government has not said what longer term target it might adopt, or how it would be reached - except to rule out any form of carbon price or emissions trading.
But according to the Climate Institute, Australia has to start making longer term plans.
"For any policy to remain stable and effective it needs to be relevant not just for the next five years, but for the next 50 years," its deputy director, Erwin Jackson, said.
"Failure to deliver a proper plan risks institutionalising investment uncertainty, and a much more rapid - and therefore more disruptive - decarbonisation at a later date. It also completely avoids the physical, investment and international realities of climate change and evolving action to address it."
Europe has already indicated a 2030 target of at least 40% below 1990 levels. China and the US have promised to unveil their pledges early next year.
The calculation of a 40% cut by 2030 is at the lower end of the findings of the independent Climate Change Authority, which recommended Australia reduce emissions by 40% to 60% below 2000 levels in 2030.
Australia is also resisting a last-ditch push by the US, France and other European countries for G20 leaders to back contributions to the Green Climate Fund, also seen as critical to securing developing-nation support for a successful deal on reducing emissions at the United Nations meeting in Paris.
The Green Climate Fund aims to help poorer countries cut their emissions and prepare for the impact of climate change, and the department of foreign affairs is understood to be considering whether Australia should contribute. But the prime minister, Tony Abbott, has previously rejected the fund as a "Bob Brown bank on an international scale", referring to the former leader of the Australian Greens.
Australia pointedly dissented from support for the fund in a communique from last November's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting - a stance backed by Canada.
LOAD-DATE: November 18, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
404 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 7, 2014 Friday 5:04 PM GMT
Radical new economic system will emerge from collapse of capitalism;
Political adviser and author Jeremy Rifkin believes that the creation of a super internet heralds new economic system that could solve society's sustainability challenges
BYLINE: Jo Confino
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 1453 words
At the very moment of its ultimate triumph, capitalism will experience the most exquisite of deaths.
This is the belief of political adviser and author Jeremy Rifkin, who argues the current economic system has become so successful at lowering the costs of production that it has created the very conditions for the destruction of the traditional vertically integrated corporation.
Rifkin, who has advised the European Commission, the European Parliament and heads of state, including German chancellor Angela Merkel, says:
No one in their wildest imagination, including economists and business people, ever imagined the possibility of a technology revolution so extreme in its productivity that it could actually reduce marginal costs to near zero, making products nearly free, abundant and absolutely no longer subject to market forces.
With many manufacturing companies surviving only on razor thin margins, they will buckle under competition from small operators with virtually no fixed costs.
"We are seeing the final triumph of capitalism followed by its exit off the world stage and the entrance of the collaborative commons," Rifkin predicts.
The creation of the collaborative commons
From the ashes of the current economic system, he believes, will emerge a radical new model powered by the extraordinary pace of innovation in energy, communication and transport.
"This is the first new economic system since the advent of capitalism and socialism in the early 19 thcentury so it's a remarkable historical event and it's going to transform our way of life fundamentally over the coming years," Rifkin says. "It already is; we just haven't framed it."
Some sectors, such as music and media, have already been disrupted as a result of the internet's ability to let individuals and small groups compete with the major established players. Meanwhile, the mainstreaming of 3D printing and tech advances in logistics - such as the installation of billions of intelligent sensors across supply chains - means this phenomenon is now spreading from the virtual to the physical world, Rifkin says.
Climate change
The creation of a new economic system, Rifkin argues, will help alleviate key sustainability challenges, such as climate change and resource scarcity, and take pressure off the natural world. That's because it will need only a minimum amount of energy, materials, labour and capital.
He says few people are aware of the scale of danger the human race is facing, particularly the growing levels of precipitation in the atmosphere, which is leading to extreme weather.
"Ecosystems can't catch up with the shift in the planet's water cycle and we're in the sixth extinction pattern," he warns. "We could lose 70% of our species by the end of this century and may be imperilling our ability to survive on this planet."
Convergence of communication, energy and transport
Every economy in history has relied for its success on the three pillars of communication, energy, and transportation, but what Rifkin says makes this age unique is that we are seeing them converge to create a super internet.
While the radical changes in communication are already well known, he claims a revolution in transport is just around the corner. "You'll have near zero marginal cost electricity with the probability of printed out cars within 10 or 15 years," he says. "Add to this GPS guidance and driverless vehicles and you will see the marginal costs of transport on this automated logistics internet falling pretty sharply."
Rifkin is particularly interested in the upheaval currently rippling through the energy sector and points to the millions of small and medium sized enterprises, homeowners and neighbourhoods already producing their own green electricity.
The momentum will only gather pace as the price of renewable technology plummets. Rifkin predicts the cost of harvesting energy will one day be as cheap as buying a phone:
You can create your own green electricity and then go up on the emerging energy internet and programme your apps to share your surpluses across that energy internet. You can also use all the big data across that value chain to see how the energy is flowing. That's not theoretical. It's just starting.
He says the German energy company E.ON has already recognised that the traditional centralised energy company model is going to disappear and is following his advice to move towards becoming a service provider, finding value by helping others manage their energy flows.
He urges large companies across all sectors to follow suit and, rather than resist change, use their impressive scale and organisational capabilities to help aggregate emerging networks.
Network neutrality: key to success
While Rifkin believes the economic revolution is likely to be unstoppable, he warns that it could be distorted if individual countries and corporations succeed in their intensifying battle for control of the internet:
If the old industries can monopolise the pipes, the structure, and destroy network neutrality, then you have global monopolies and Big Brother for sure. But if we are able to maintain network neutrality, it would mean that any consumer who turns prosumer, with their mobile and their apps, already can begin to feed into this expanded internet of things that's developing. People think this is off on the horizon but if I had said in 1989, before the web came, that 25 years later we'd have democratised communication and 40% of the human race would be sending information goods of all kinds to each other, they'd have said that couldn't happen.
The paradox of over-consumption
Isn't Rifkin concerned that the ability to produce goods so cheaply will just lead to more strain on the planet's limited resources as a growing global population go on a buying frenzy?
He believes there is a paradox operating here, which is that over consumption results from our fear of scarcity, so will go away when we know we can have what we want.
Millennials are already seeing through the false notion that the more we accumulate, the more we are autonomous and free. It seems they are more interested in developing networks and joining the sharing economy than in consumption for consumption's sake.
Nonprofit sector to become preeminent
What about the concern that the end of capitalism would lead to chaos? Rifkin believes the gap left by the disappearance of major corporations will be filled by the nonprofit sector.
For anyone who doubts this, Rifkin points to the hundreds of millions of people who are already involved in a vast network of co-operatives around the world:
There's an institution in our life that we all rely on every day that provides all sorts of goods and services that have nothing to do with profit or government entitlement and without it we couldn't live and that's the social commons. There's millions of organisations that provide healthcare, education, ministering to the poor, culture, arts, sports, recreation, and it goes on and on. This isn't considered by economists because it creates social capital which is essential to all three of the internets, but doesn't create market capital. But as a revenue producer, it's huge and what's interesting is it's growing faster than the GDP in the private market system.
At the age of 69, Rifkin admits he may not live long enough to see his hope for a better future materialise, but says the collaborative commons offers the only viable way forward to deal with the sustainability challenges faced by humanity.
"We've got a new potential platform to get us to where we need to go", he says. "I don't know if it's in time, but if there's an alternative plan I have no idea what it could be. What I do know is that staying with a vertically integrated system - based on large corporations with fossil fuels, nuclear power and centralised telecommunications, alongside growing unemployment, a narrowing of GDP and technologies that are moribund - is not the answer."
Read more like this:
An economic system that supports people and planet is still possible
Ebola's catastrophic consequences on Sierra Leone's small-scale mining sector
Blueprint for Better Business gives companies a 'get out of jail free card'
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: November 7, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
405 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 7, 2014 Friday 4:25 PM GMT
Climate change denier Jim Inhofe in line for Senate's top environmental job;
Obama faces a fight to protect his climate change agenda after midterm results suggest Senate's top environmental post will fall to Republican stalwart of climate denial Op-ed: Double down on oil and trouble? Not so fast
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1001 words
The Senate's top environmental job is set to fall to Jim Inhofe, one of the biggest names in US climate denial, but campaigners say Barack Obama will fight to protect his global warming agenda.
Oklahoma Republican Inhofe has been denying the science behind climate change for 20 years - long before it became a cause for the conservative tea party wing. Following midterm elections which saw the Republicans take control of the senate, he is now expected to become the chairman of the senate environment and public works committee.
However, advocates believe Obama will work to protect his signature power plant rules from Republican attacks, and to live up to his earlier commitments to a global deal on fight climate change.
"We think he sees this as a critically important part of his second term legacy and there is no reason why he should not continue to go forward on this... both domestically and around the world," Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, told a press briefing.
The campaigners were less clear, however, how far Obama would be willing to fight to block the Keystone XL pipeline project.
Obama will get a chance to show he is still committed to fighting climate change during a trip to Beijing next week, where the US and Chinese are expected to announce new energy co-operation.
Extracting a pledge from China to cut emissions is hugely important now for Obama, who faces growing pressure from Republicans to demonstrate that other countries beyond the US - especially the high-emissions, rising economies - are acting on climate change.
"It is a domestic political imperative for the president to gain emissions reductions from China and other major emitters as much as it is an international policy goal," said Paul Bledsoe, a climate change official in the Clinton White House.
"The president is under increasing pressure to gain emissions reductions from China and other major emitters in order to justify US domestic mitigation policy. That is going to be the spin Republicans put on it - that we are wasting our time with domestic emissions reductions because they will be swamped by developing countries' pollution."
Obama is going to feel that pressure the most from Congress. With his opponents now in control of both houses, the top slot on the Senate's environment and public works committee passes from a climate defender, the California Democrat, Barbara Boxer, to Inhofe.
He published a book in 2012 calling global warming a hoax, and has compared the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Gestapo.
A spokeswoman for Inhofe said his first concern was passing the defence budget, and that he would make no comment on his leadership roles until next week.
But if, as expected, Inhofe becomes the new committee chair next January, he will probably try to dismantle the EPA rules cutting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants - the centrepiece of Obama's environmental agenda.
Industry lobbyists and campaigners said Inhofe lacked the votes to throw out the power plant rules entirely.
Obama would also veto any such move, said Scott Segal, an energy and coal lobbyist with Bracewell & Giuliani.
"I'm not sure we have the votes to advance those across the finish line particularly if they are vetoed," Segal told a conference call with reporters. Instead, he said he expected "tailored changes", which could weaken the rules.
Bledsoe did expect, however, that Obama will sign off on the controversial Keystone XL project early next year.
Republicans have said approving the pipeline, built to pump tar sands crude to Texas Gulf Coast refineries, would be an early order of business.
Obama in his post-election press conference gave no indication what he would decide. But Bledsoe said: "I actually believe the president is likely to approve the piepline and in the process deny Republicans a politically potent issue."
From his perch in the Senate, Inhofe is expected to launch multiple investigations into the EPA - including Republican charges that the agency leaned heavily on a campaign group in drafting the proposed new rules.
But as committee chair, Inhofe is unlikely to indulge in quite the same level of theatrics on climate denial, said RL Miller, a California lawyer and founder of the grassroots organising group, Climate Hawks Vote.
"I expect we are going to see less headline-grabbing efforts on the EPA and more of simply throttling their budget," Miller said. "If he touches climate denial at all he is going to be ridiculed in public and in the media. If he is smart, he is going to be very quiet publicly, and it will be death by a thousand cuts in the kind of budget battles that people like Jon Stewart don't pay attention to."
Despite their upbeat postures, Tuesday's results were a big setback for campaign groups which had invested an unprecedented amount in trying to elect pro-climate candidates to Congress.
The former hedge fund billionaire, Tom Steyer, spent nearly $75m on advertising and organising in only seven races, making him the biggest known single spender in these elections. Only three of his candidates won.
"There is no way to dance around the issue that in too many races we lost good allies," Michael Brune, the director of the Sierra Club, told a briefing. "We see those people being replaced by people that are against our values."
But the environmental leaders blamed the poor showing on low turnout in an off election year - and continued to insist that climate change was becoming a top-tier issue.
They insisted their effort had put climate change on the electoral map - a big shift from 2012 when virtually no candidates would even utter the words climate change.
This time around, Republican candidates were forced to back away from outright climate denial, the campaigners said.
They noted Cory Gardner, the newly elected Republican Senator from Colorado, had appeared in campaign ads with wind turbines, after earlier disparaging climate science. "Climate denial is an endangered species," Brune said.
LOAD-DATE: November 7, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
406 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 7, 2014 Friday 3:20 PM GMT
Substantial investment in UK offshore wind mean sector is poised for double digit growth;
The Crown Estate estimates offshore wind will be meeting around 10% of the UK's electricity demand by 2020, but this growth is not without its critics
BYLINE: Huub den Rooijen
SECTION: THE BIG IDEAS - FROM OUR PARTNERS
LENGTH: 846 words
This has been a landmark year for the UK offshore wind industry.
We have seen significant milestones hit, such as 4GW of capacity now in operation - enough to meet the electricity demands of nearly 3.2m UK households. Substantial investment announcements have included those from Siemens and AB Ports - for manufacturing facilities on the Humber - and from the Green Investment Bank to support the construction of two major projects and the establishment of a £1bn Offshore Wind Fund.
With the government financial support that has been issued by the Department for Energy and Climate Change for further offshore wind development, this is now an annual multi-billion pound market that is poised for double-digit growth at least until 2020.
As a result, the UK continues to be the most attractive place to invest in offshore wind globally, with fantastic natural resources and a project pipeline that comfortably meets the most demanding government scenarios; in fact, we estimate that offshore wind will be meeting around 10% of the UK's electricity demand by 2020.
Yet this growth is not without its critics, and it is only right that we ask whether these billions will help address the pressing energy issues of our time: energy security; climate changing CO2 emissions; and the affordability of basic human needs. These are three components of what is often called the "energy trilemma", so how does offshore wind score in these areas?
In a globalised world where long-term access to energy resources is increasingly politicised, the certainty of access to our wind energy resources should place wind power squarely in the middle of any UK energy policy. Of course, fortunately for British summer the wind doesn't always blow and that's why wind power will always require some form of backup supply, which is precisely what the power grid is capable of. In fact, the existing energy system when taken as a whole is robust enough to accommodate a large amount of wind without expensive backup (PDF).
As further supported by the stark evidence in the concluding instalment of the Fifth Assessment Report from the IPCC last weekend, climate change threatens irreversible and dangerous change. With the power sector responsible for around a third of our national carbon dioxide emissions, any climate change programme will have decarbonisation of the power sector as one of its core components. Here too, offshore wind scores well, as the energy that is used in manufacturing and installing an offshore wind farm can be generated by running that wind farm for a 6 to 9 month period. Given the typical wind farm lifetime of 20 years or more, the "energy payback time" of offshore wind is therefore very small indeed.
However, we have to be honest and acknowledge that the same cannot be said for the economic payback time, as the costs of wind power are still much higher than those for competing sources of power generation. The technology is still young and relatively costly, and in a world of technology competition and consumer price concerns it is imperative that costs continue to come down.
As a result, the offshore wind sector is working to very challenging cost reduction targets, and progress is being made not only in the UK but across Europe. As part of this drive, we are seeing industry increasingly working together to tackle common cost barriers where appropriate, a kind of 'cooperative competition'.
What is required alongside this is concerted action by the government and industry to ensure that the steady build-out of offshore wind will continue beyond 2020. This will drive technological and industrial innovation, which will continue to drive down costs and improve the competitiveness of offshore wind in relation to competing generating technologies.
With a general election approaching fast, the ball is now in industry's court to demonstrate that it is up for the challenge to deliver the large-scale projects being developed off our shores at competitive price levels. They'll need to turn ambition and vision into contracts; build the supply chain that will continue to deliver local jobs and economic opportunities ; and perhaps most importantly of all, gaining consumer and political confidence by enhanced transparency about performance and the contribution to our energy supplies.
What better way to achieve this than for the government to take industry at its word, and open up the vast offshore project opportunities to price competition. The recently completed Electricity Market Reform offers the framework for this. At The Crown Estate we will continue to work with the market to ensure this natural resource benefits the nation in the long-term.
Huub den Rooijen is head of offshore wind at The Crown Estate, which manages the UK seabed, assesses the case for offshore wind in turbulent times and calls for greater transparency in debating our energy future.
Content on this page is paid for and provided by The Crown Estate, one of the sponsors of the Big Energy Debate
LOAD-DATE: November 7, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
407 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 7, 2014 Friday 2:34 PM GMT
Poland rejects IPCC target of zero emissions by 2100;
IPCC recommendation to phase out fossil fuels by end of century to avoid dangerous global warming is categorically rejected by Poland and other eastern European countries
BYLINE: Arthur Neslen, Brussels
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 652 words
Poland and other eastern Europe countries have categorically rejected the target put forward by the world's top climate scientists to reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2100 to avoid dangerous global warming, leaked documents show.
On Sunday, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that fossil fuels must be entirely phased out by the end of the century to keep temperatures from rising as high as 5C above pre-industrial levels, a level that would have catastrophic impacts worldwide.
On 28 October, a few days before the IPCC synthesis report was published, EU environment and energy ministers meeting in Brussels were presented with a proposal by states including Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Germany to incorporate the IPCC target into EU policy.
However, it was judged not to have "sufficient support" because of opposition from Poland, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Latvia who "categorically rejected" it, according to a internal briefing note seen by the Guardian.
Poland has vetoed past EU attempts to set climate objectives, and invested political capital in positioning itself as a leader of the Visegrad countries in the run up to the EU's decision on climate targets for 2030.
The European commission (EC), represented by the outgoing climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, gave only lukewarm support to the zero emissions idea, saying it was "all in favour of having a direction in which we should be going but it might be a bit premature to state it so directly - not all member states will probably be ready to do so".
Detlef van Vuuren, a lead author on the IPCC report, told the Guardian: "I'm quite surprised that this would be an important thing for the Visegrad countries to be worried about, because for them the question has been more about near-term reductions."
"To reach the 2C target, being at or below zero emissions is a requirement," he added. "It is not possible to have any form of stabilisation of the climate by 2100 without that."
"I really find this a disgrace," the Dutch Green MEP Bas Eickhout said. "After the IPCC report, everyone again said it was shocking, the science is clear, we should no longer delay action. And then as soon as it comes to political decisions, they step back from that. It just seems to be empty words every time. This is one of the key reasons why people don't trust politics anymore."
Ministers at the summit, which was attended by the UK energy secretary, Ed Davey, also agreed not to insist on an assessment of countries' carbon-cutting pledges ahead of next year's climate summit in Paris, after opposition from France, Poland and the Czech Republic.
An assessment had been supported by powerful EU players including the UK, Germany and the EC, mindful of failure at the Copenhagen summit in 2009, when climate pledges were not telegraphed beforehand. But the final text said only that contributions would be "properly considered and analysed in advance of the Paris conference".
The EU ministers also agreed to leave the question of binding resource efficiency targets off a review agenda for the rest of the decade, after opposition from around half of the bloc's nations.
The argument that waste recycling, management and prevention goals would 'dilute' Europe's focus on other 2020 targets was made by countries such as Britain, Germany, Ireland, Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Romania.
Poland led other states arguing that it would be premature to adopt such goals without a more robust set of indicators.
The outgoing environment commissioner Janez Potocnik responded that far from being premature, "we were already too late and needed to catch up; the world has changed since the Europe 2020 targets were set in 2010".
A consensus was finally reached to ask the commission to integrate resource efficiency into the EU's 2020 strategy by "the introduction of an EU non-binding aspirational target".
LOAD-DATE: November 7, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
408 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 7, 2014 Friday 12:56 PM GMT
2071 five-star review - urgent call for the greatest collective action in history;
Royal Court, LondonThe facts are sombre in Chris Rapley's compelling 75-minute talk on climate change, but his belief in human ingenuity knows no bounds · Climate change play 2071 aims to make data dramatic
BYLINE: Michael Billington
SECTION: STAGE
LENGTH: 701 words
Star Rating: 5 stars
Other theatres investigate the past: the Royal Court is taking on the task of examining the future. After Ten Billion, in which Stephen Emmott explored the catastrophic consequences of over-population, we now have this monologue by Chris Rapley, co-written with dramatist Duncan Macmillan, which looks at the outcome of mankind's dependence on fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases. If Rapley's talk is less doom-laden than Emmott's, it nonetheless sends you out of the theatre in a state of heightened concern.
Some will argue this is not really theatre. But the idea that theatre should be exclusively reserved for fiction has been knocked on the head by a surge of documentary dramas and verbatim plays. And Katie Mitchell, who directed both this show and Ten Billion, realises that the eye needs to be satisfied as well as the ear. Rapley sits in a chair and, without notes, talks to the audience with an astonishing calm and command of facts for 75 minutes. Meanwhile Chloe Lamford's design presents us with swirling video images behind him that illustrate Rapley's arguments and have a strange beauty of their own.
Much of the power of Rapley's talk stems from his personal investment in the subject. He describes how, as a boy, he was fascinated by maps of Antarctica depicting "regions unknown to man". This led him towards a distinguished career in which he has been, among many other things, director of the British Antarctic Survey and the Science Museum. He also explains that the title of his talk stems from the fact that his grand-daughter will be his current age in 2071 and that he wants her to inherit an inhabitable planet.
Rapley admits that climate change is "an emotive issue", but he relies on hard scientific evidence to make his points. He starts with a broad geophysical survey of our planet, and then homes in on specifics about where we are today. As a result of 90% of the world's glaciers and ice caps retreating, sea levels will inevitably rise; and this, he points out, affects the climactic equilibrium which is the basis of modern civilisation.
Rapley proceeds by rationally accumulating the facts. But periodically he comes out with disturbing general statements. Explaining how the atmosphere is warmer because the global carbon cycle has been disrupted, he tells us that "we are the first human beings to breathe this level of carbon dioxide". And, in a clear rebuke to climate-change deniers, he warns: "All the warming that is occurring is due to us." He also leaves us in no doubt as to the urgency of the situation.
A global temperature-rise of 2C is the "guard rail" beyond which lies disaster. If we are to avoid that, says Rapley, "it will require the greatest collective action in history."
The facts are sombre. But, where Emmott's Ten Billion ended with the words "I think we're fucked", Rapley believes that human ingenuity is unbounded.
Outlining possible solutions to the crisis, he suggests there is little we can do about escalating population and the global economy. He pins his faith in greater energy efficiency and a growing dependence on renewables such as wind farms and solar power. He points out China and India are already massively investing in wind farms, but he is too polite to attack Britain's blinkered resistance to such an obvious, economically viable source of energy.
My only complaint about the evening is that no printed text is available: a pity, since there is a mass of information to digest at a single hearing. But Professor Rapley's talk is compelling, forensic in its approach and based on scientific data rather than heated emotion. For all I know, he may be addressing the converted.
But I suspect even the most obdurate, climate-change denier would have to admit to the logic of the case he presents. And, if we look to theatre to increase our awareness of the human condition, the evening succeeds on all counts. A lot of theatre provides optional pleasure. This talk, which deserves wide dissemination, is better than good: it is necessary.
· Until 15 November. Box office: 020- 7565 5000. Venue: Royal Court theatre
Climate change play 2071 aims to make data dramatic
LOAD-DATE: November 7, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
409 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 7, 2014 Friday 12:09 PM GMT
Green news roundup: elephants, IPCC report and solar cycle lanes;
The week's top environment news stories and green events · If you're not already receiving this roundup, sign up here to get the briefing delivered to your inbox
BYLINE: Environment editor
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 262 words
News
· IPCC: rapid carbon emission cuts vital to stop severe impact of climate change· Elephant ivory price 'spiked as China VIPs snapped up thousands of kilos'· Three arrests fail to staunch mystery of drones flying over French nuclear plants· Climate change denier Jim Inhofe in line for Senate's top environmental job· Climate change is disrupting flower pollination, research shows· G20: Australia resists international call supporting climate change fund· Risk of floods in England up due to cuts in government funding, say NAO· Church of England 'failing to heed call to divest from fossil fuels'
Blogs and comment
· New research quantifies what's causing sea level to rise | John Abraham· The IPCC is stern on climate change - but it still underestimates the situation | Bill McKibben· Playing whack-a-mole with Australian advisor's climate change myths | Graham Readfearn
Multimedia
· Starling murmurations - in pictures· The week in wildlife - in pictures· Carleton Watkins' breathtaking photographs of Yosemite from 1861 - in pictures
Features
· German solar ambitions at risk from cuts to subsidies· What's the environmental impact of modern war?· Will the UK's pollinator strategy be enough to stop bee decline?· Virunga film-makers ask viewers to join campaign against oil company Soco· Climate change play 2071 aims to make data dramatic
...And finally
· World's first solar cycle lane opening in the NetherlandsSolar panels embedded in the cycle path near Amsterdam could generate enough electricity to power three houses, with potential to extend scheme to roads
LOAD-DATE: November 7, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
410 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 7, 2014 Friday 6:00 AM GMT
Typhoon Haiyan: millions of lives still blighted one year on;
Filipinos still living in temporary shelters and evacuation centres after storm that killed more than 6,000 and displaced 4 million
BYLINE: Peter Walker
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 779 words
A year after typhoon Haiyan devastated central areas of the Philippines, aid workers and officials are warning that millions of people are still living in temporary shelters and evacuation centres.
Haiyan, which is known locally as Yolanda and carried winds of 195mph, killed more than 6,000 people and left 4 million displaced, are likely to be increasingly common in the era of climate change, they say, making the situation for those in temporary accommodation all the more perilous.
"This is a reality for the world, and it's certainly a reality for the Philippines," said Jennifer MacCann, operation director in the country for the charity World Vision. "There will be bigger storms, they will have much more of an impact, and we should expect them."
Despite intensive relief efforts by the Philippines government and international agencies, including £95m raised from the British public by a Disasters Emergency Committee appeal, aid teams say more than 2.5 million people in the region hit by typhoon Haiyan remain without proper homes. At least 100,000 are living in coastal areas officially declared unsafe, many in temporary shelters made from tarpaulins or plastic sheeting.
Adding to the safety worries is the fact that many of the communal typhoon shelters which saved thousands of people from Haiyan, often schools, churches and community centres, remain damaged or destroyed.
A study by the International Migration Organisation (IOM) in April found that in Samar province, one of the areas worst hit, of 634 official evacuation shelters only 8% remained intact, with a quarter completely destroyed and 400 more needing major work. Subsequent storms have seen more demand for the remaining communal centres as many homes remain unsafe, said the IOM, describing the Philippines as "on the front line of climate change". According to MacCann, it could take five years to get people into safe homes.
In July, the country was battered by another major storm. Typhoon Glenda killed more than 100 people.
If a major typhoon was to strike the areas devastated by Haiyan again in the near future, there is the potential for catastrophe, said Alison Kent, Oxfam's humanitarian policy advisor in the Philippines. "That's the key thing with evacuation centres, they're such a critical way to minimise loss of life. With such a big storm as Haiyan to have an estimated 6,000 fatalities, given the extent of the damage, the loss of life could have been much greater. But now, in the absence of some of those evacuation facilities, it's a big concern."
Another big storm would also wreck efforts to resuscitate the region's economy, after Haiyan devastated farmland, coconut plantations and fishing fleets.
This was a particular problem away from the region's main city, Tacloban, said Laura Gilmour of Care International: "It's people in these remote areas [who] are more vulnerable anyway, because they don't have the land, or they're completely dependent on something like coconut farming, which has been completely wiped out. They are now in huge debt, still having to pay landowners even if they have no crops."
Several charities report significant numbers of people leaving Haiyan-hit areas for Manila or other cities, including women who have entered the sex industry to support their families.
The key Filipino voice sounding the alert over the prospect of more mega-storms is Yeb Saño, the country's climate change commissioner, who made headlines last November when, in the wake of Haiyan, he made a tearful speech to UN climate talks in Warsaw before going on a protest fast.
Saño is currently halfway through a 620-mile (1,000km) walk from Manila to Tacloban to raise awareness of the effect of climate change on a country with more than 20,000 miles of coastline. He aims to arrive on the anniversary of the day Haiyan made landfall, 8 November.
"It's three years in a row that we've been hit by super-storms, and we had another strong one last July," he told the Guardian. "We are barely scratching the surface when we talk about addressing the root causes of all this. It's all connected to these causes - poverty, environmental degradation, governance. All of these things combined could lead to disastrous consequences."
During the walk, Saño said, he was collecting people's experiences of how climate change affected them. The cumulative impact was overwhelming, he said. "They're telling us about how things have changed for the worst compared to several years ago, with storms, punishing droughts, and erratic rainfall patterns. One of the things we're doing on this walk is documenting these stories from ordinary Filipinos so we can tell the whole world about them."
LOAD-DATE: November 7, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
411 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 7, 2014 Friday 12:54 AM GMT
G20: Australia resists international call supporting climate change fund;
Exclusive: Europe and the US argue strongly that leaders should back the need for contributions to the Green Climate Fund, which helps poorer countries prepare for climate change
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, Guardian Australia political editor
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 609 words
Australia is resisting a last-ditch push by the US, France and other European countries for G20 leaders at next week's meeting in Brisbane to back contributions to the Green Climate Fund.
The prime minister has previously rejected the fund as a "Bob Brown bank on an international scale" - referring to the former leader of the Australian Greens.
The Green Climate Fund aims to help poorer countries cut their emissions and prepare for the impact of climate change, and is seen as critical to securing developing-nation support for a successful deal on reducing emissions at the United Nations meeting in Paris next year.
The US and European Union nations are also lobbying for G20 leaders to promise that post-2020 greenhouse emission reduction targets will be unveiled early, to improve the chances of a deal in Paris, but Australia is also understood to be resisting this.
As reported by Guardian Australia, Australia has reluctantly conceded the final G20 communique should include climate change as a single paragraph, acknowledging that it should be addressed by UN processes. Australia's original position was that the meeting should focus solely on "economic issues".
The text that has so far made it through the G20's closed-door, consensus-driven process is very general, and reads as follows:
"We support strong and effective action to address climate change, consistent with sustainable economic growth and certainty for business and investment. We reaffirm our resolve to adopt a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that is applicable to all parties at the 21st Conference of the Parties in Paris in 2015."
Australia had previously insisted the G20 should discuss climate-related issues only as part of its deliberations on energy efficiency, but the energy efficiency action plan to be agreed at the meeting, revealed by Guardian Australia, does not require G20 leaders to commit to any actual action.
Instead it asks them to "consider" making promises next year to reduce the energy used by smartphones and computers and to develop tougher standards for car emissions.
But as the negotiations on the G20 communique reach their final stages, European nations and the US continue to argue strongly that leaders should back the need for contributions to the Green Climate Fund.
More than $2.8bn has been pledged to the fund so far - including $1bn by France and almost $1bn by Germany. More pledges are expected at a special conference in Berlin on 20 November. The UK has said it will make a "strong" contribution at that meeting.
It is understood the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which leads Australia's negotiating position, is considering whether Australia should make a pledge.
Asked about the fund before last year's UN meeting, the prime minister said "we're not going to be making any contributions to that". It was reported that at one of its first cabinet meetings the Abbott government decided it would make no contributions to a fund that was described as "socialism masquerading as environmentalism".
The government also pointedly dissented from support for the fund in a communique from last November's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting - a stance backed by Canada.
Abbott told the Australian newspaper at the time; "One thing the current government will never do is say one thing at home and a different thing abroad. We are committed to dismantling the Bob Brown bank [the Clean Energy Finance Corporation] at home so it would be impossible for us to support a Bob Brown bank on an international scale."
LOAD-DATE: November 7, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
412 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 7, 2014 Friday
Late Edition - Final
Meager Returns for the Democrats' Biggest Donor
BYLINE: By CORAL DAVENPORT
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 14
LENGTH: 1064 words
WASHINGTON -- In the last days before the midterm elections, Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmentalist who spent at least $57 million of his own money to influence Tuesday's outcome -- more than any other single donor -- set off on a frenetic get-out-the-vote tour to Colorado, Iowa and finally New Hampshire. There, he told business owners in Portsmouth that climate change is an economic issue, thanked college students in Durham for knocking on doors, and gave a pep talk to canvassers in Dover before they fanned out to collect voter data on their smartphones.
After all that, Mr. Steyer appears to have largely wasted his time and money.
Most of his candidates lost, even though Mr. Steyer, his advocacy organization NextGen Climate, and other environmental groups spent a total of about $85 million -- a magnitude greater than they had ever spent in any election year.
''It was a comedy disaster,'' said Mike Murphy, a longtime Republican political strategist. ''The worst thing that happened to the environment this cycle is the bonfire from Tom Steyer burning $80 million on a wasted campaign.''
Of the seven Senate and governors' races in which NextGen Climate spent to elect Democrats, only three Democrats won: For the Senate in New Hampshire and Michigan, and in Pennsylvania for governor. The money the group poured into influencing Senate races in Colorado and Iowa and governors' races in Florida and Maine did nothing to stave off the wave of Republican victories in those states.
The campaign also invested in handful of state-level races in Washington and Oregon, where Mr. Steyer hoped to deliver Democratic-majority legislatures packed with pro-environment liberals. Although votes are still being counted in both places, it appears that the effort in Washington has probably failed.
But Mr. Steyer insists he is undaunted. In a telephone interview on Thursday, he said that his efforts in 2014 were the first plays in a long game, which he hopes will come to fruition in the next election cycle and beyond.
''There was a big Republican wave, and in some places that wave washed over us,'' Mr. Steyer said. ''We wish that weren't true. But we put climate on the ballot. We set up an infrastructure. We set ourselves up to go toward 2016 with a lot of assets.''
In short, he said, ''I think this was money incredibly well spent.''
Mr. Steyer and his strategists said that their campaigns succeeded in injecting the issue of climate change into the heart of the political debate when it had long been sidelined. In the meantime Mr. Steyer emerged from the 2014 midterms with a much larger national profile, with indications that he himself may be eyeing a future race for governor or senator in California.
Christopher Lehane, Mr. Steyer's chief political strategist, said that Mr. Steyer's spending was a down payment on a multiyear strategy aimed at ensuring that climate change stays at the center of the political debate, while creating a new generation of voters who would prioritize climate change.
Mr. Lehane said that his group has created a first-of-its-kind database of 350,000 ''climate voters'' in vital presidential swing states, and that NextGen strategists plan to maintain constant contact with those voters while expanding their numbers before the 2016 presidential election.
The idea, Mr. Lehane said, is to ensure that those voters elevate the issue of climate change -- by asking questions of candidates in town halls, holding demonstrations and ensuring that the issue stays on the radar.
''These are our climate warriors,'' Mr. Lehane said. Mr. Steyer said that while his campaign did not elect climate-friendly candidates in Colorado, Iowa and Florida, he asserted that it increased the visibility of climate change as a topic of political debate. Climate change was never mentioned once in the 2012 presidential debates between President Obama and Mitt Romney, but the issue came up in at least 10 midterm debates.
Environmentalists also point to at least one policy victory emerging from this week. Mr. Steyer's group spent heavily to support the new governor-elect of Pennsylvania, Tom Wolf, who has pledged to link his state with a Northeastern cap-and-trade program, aimed at cutting planet-warming carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants.
''With the change in governor, Pennsylvania is a state where the way is open to curb emissions,'' said David Doniger, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group. ''In this state, someone who was against this was replaced by someone who wants to move forward.''
Mr. Steyer also appears to have used his national climate change campaign as a testing ground for his own political aspirations. Throughout the campaign, he has been featured in national magazines and newspapers, including this one, and frequently interviewed on television, nearly always in his signature red plaid tie. Like a political candidate, he has an advance team of staff members who work with him on the campaign trail -- mostly in presidential swing states -- as he holds living room chats, rallies young supporters and speaks to crowds. Over haddock chowder at Harvey's cafe in Dover last week, Mr. Steyer did not dismiss the idea that he is planning a run for elective office.
''If it would help the movement, I'd consider it,'' he said.
But critics say his own high profile may have hurt the efforts of his campaign.
''It looked like a vanity project,'' said John Feehery, another Republican strategist. ''Instead of moving the needle, it was about getting his own name recognition. It ended up being all about him.''
Just as liberal groups run ads linking candidates to Charles G. and David H. Koch, the billionaire brothers, and the their opposition to climate change policy, conservative groups have now started to run ads targeting candidates' ties to Mr. Steyer and his money. By politicizing the issue of climate change, some strategists say, Mr. Steyer may have raised his own profile and also made it more difficult for lawmakers to reach bipartisan consensus on the issue.
''The most important thing is to normalize this issue with Republicans,'' said Mark Mellman, a Democratic strategist. ''Anything that makes it more partisan makes it less likely that there will be legislation, until such time as Democrats take over the world. Which according to my watch, will not be happening anytime soon.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/us/politics/-meager-returns-for-the-democrats-biggest-donor-tom-steyer.html
LOAD-DATE: November 7, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Tom Steyer at a school in October. The $57 million he spent on the elections backed few winners. (PHOTOGRAPH BY DAMIAN DOVARGANES/ASSOCIATED PRESS)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
413 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 6, 2014 Thursday 5:00 PM GMT
Climate change is disrupting flower pollination, research shows;
New research reveals that rising temperatures are causing bees to fly before flowers have bloomed, making pollination less likely
BYLINE: Damian Carrington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 697 words
Sexual deceit, pressed flowers and Victorian bee collectors are combined in new scientific research which demonstrates for the first time that climate change threatens flower pollination, which underpins much of the world's food production.
The work used museum records stretching back to 1848 to show that the early spider orchid and the miner bee on which it depends for reproduction have become increasingly out of sync as spring temperatures rise due to global warming.
The orchid resembles a female miner bee and exudes the same sex pheromone to seduce the male bee into "pseudocopulation" with the flower, an act which also achieves pollination. The orchids have evolved to flower at the same time as the bee emerges.
But while rising temperatures cause both the orchid and the bee to flower or fly earlier in the spring, the bees are affected much more, which leads to a mismatch.
"We have shown that plants and their pollinators show different responses to climate change and that warming will widen the timeline between bees and flowers emerging," said Dr Karen Robbirt, at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and the University of East Anglia (UEA). "If replicated in less specific systems, this could have severe implications for crop productivity."
She said the research, published in Current Biology on Thursday, is "the first clear example, supported by long-term data, of the potential for climate change to disrupt critical [pollination] relationships between species."
Three-quarters of all food crops rely on pollination, and bees and other pollinators have already suffered heavily in recent decades from disease, pesticide use and the widespread loss of the flowery habitats on which they feed. In the UK alone, the free fertilisation provided by pollinators is estimated to be worth £430m a year to farmers.
Professor Anthony Davy, also at UEA and part of the research team, said: "There will be progressive disruption of pollination systems with climatic warming, which could lead to the breakdown of co-evolved interactions between species."
Scientists have already identified a few timing mismatches caused by global warming between species and their prey. Oak tree buds are eaten by winter moths, whose caterpillars are in turn fed by great tits to their chicks, but the synchronicity of all these events has been disrupted.
Suspected mismatches have occurred between sea birds and fish, such as puffins and herring and guillemots and sand eels. The red admiral butterfly and the stinging nettle, one of its host plants, are also getting out of sync.
The new study focused on the early spider orchid Ophrys sphegodes, found in southern England, and the solitary miner bee species Andrena nigroaenea because they have a very close relationship. Other plants can be pollinated by many insects and other insects can pollinate many plants, making it very hard to determine the effect of changing temperatures.
Another challenge is that the temperature effects can be subtle, meaning data has to be collected over a long period. Robbirt and her colleagues realised that the natural history museums in London and Oxford and Kew Gardens had dated specimens of both the orchid and the bee stretching back to 1848.
Analysing all the data, and checking it against recent surveys, revealed that the orchid flowers six days earlier for every 1C increase in spring temperatures. But the effect on the male miner bee was greater, as it emerged nine days earlier.
The female miner bees, which usually emerge later than the male, emerged 15 days earlier. The latter effect meant the male bees were less likely to visit the orchid flowers for pseudocopulation. "The orchids are likely to be outcompeted by the real thing," said Robbirt.
The UK government published its national pollinator strategy on Tuesday. It was welcomed by the pesticide trade body, the Crop Protection Association and the National Farmers Union. But Joan Walley MP, chair of parliament's Environmental Audit Committee, said: "I am disappointed the government seems stubbornly determined to keep open the possibility of challenging the EU ban on neonicotinoid pesticides, which have been linked to pollinator declines."
LOAD-DATE: November 6, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
414 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 6, 2014 Thursday 4:57 PM GMT
Climate change denier Jim Inhofe in line for Senate's top environmental job;
Obama faces a fight to protect his climate change agenda after midterm results suggest Senate's top environmental post will fall to Republican stalwart of climate denial
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1001 words
The Senate's top environmental job is set to fall to Jim Inhofe, one of the biggest names in US climate denial, but campaigners say Barack Obama will fight to protect his global warming agenda.
Oklahoma Republican Inhofe has been denying the science behind climate change for 20 years - long before it became a cause for the conservative tea party wing. Following midterm elections which saw the Republicans take control of the senate, he is now expected to become the chairman of the senate environment and public works committee.
However, advocates believe Obama will work to protect his signature power plant rules from Republican attacks, and to live up to his earlier commitments to a global deal on fight climate change.
"We think he sees this as a critically important part of his second term legacy and there is no reason why he should not continue to go forward on this... both domestically and around the world," Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, told a press briefing.
The campaigners were less clear, however, how far Obama would be willing to fight to block the Keystone XL pipeline project.
Obama will get a chance to show he is still committed to fighting climate change during a trip to Beijing next week, where the US and Chinese are expected to announce new energy co-operation.
Extracting a pledge from China to cut emissions is hugely important now for Obama, who faces growing pressure from Republicans to demonstrate that other countries beyond the US - especially the high-emissions, rising economies - are acting on climate change.
"It is a domestic political imperative for the president to gain emissions reductions from China and other major emitters as much as it is an international policy goal," said Paul Bledsoe, a climate change official in the Clinton White House.
"The president is under increasing pressure to gain emissions reductions from China and other major emitters in order to justify US domestic mitigation policy. That is going to be the spin Republicans put on it - that we are wasting our time with domestic emissions reductions because they will be swamped by developing countries' pollution."
Obama is going to feel that pressure the most from Congress. With his opponents now in control of both houses, the top slot on the Senate's environment and public works committee passes from a climate defender, the California Democrat, Barbara Boxer, to Inhofe.
He published a book in 2012 calling global warming a hoax, and has compared the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Gestapo.
A spokeswoman for Inhofe said his first concern was passing the defence budget, and that he would make no comment on his leadership roles until next week.
But if, as expected, Inhofe becomes the new committee chair next January, he will probably try to dismantle the EPA rules cutting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants - the centrepiece of Obama's environmental agenda.
Industry lobbyists and campaigners said Inhofe lacked the votes to throw out the power plant rules entirely.
Obama would also veto any such move, said Scott Segal, an energy and coal lobbyist with Bracewell & Giuliani.
"I'm not sure we have the votes to advance those across the finish line particularly if they are vetoed," Segal told a conference call with reporters. Instead, he said he expected "tailored changes", which could weaken the rules.
Bledsoe did expect, however, that Obama will sign off on the controversial Keystone XL project early next year.
Republicans have said approving the pipeline, built to pump tar sands crude to Texas Gulf Coast refineries, would be an early order of business.
Obama in his post-election press conference gave no indication what he would decide. But Bledsoe said: "I actually believe the president is likely to approve the piepline and in the process deny Republicans a politically potent issue."
From his perch in the Senate, Inhofe is expected to launch multiple investigations into the EPA - including Republican charges that the agency leaned heavily on a campaign group in drafting the proposed new rules.
But as committee chair, Inhofe is unlikely to indulge in quite the same level of theatrics on climate denial, said RL Miller, a California lawyer and founder of the grassroots organising group, Climate Hawks Vote.
"I expect we are going to see less headline-grabbing efforts on the EPA and more of simply throttling their budget," Miller said. "If he touches climate denial at all he is going to be ridiculed in public and in the media. If he is smart, he is going to be very quiet publicly, and it will be death by a thousand cuts in the kind of budget battles that people like Jon Stewart don't pay attention to."
Despite their upbeat postures, Tuesday's results were a big setback for campaign groups which had invested an unprecedented amount in trying to elect pro-climate candidates to Congress.
The former hedge fund billionaire, Tom Steyer, spent nearly $75m on advertising and organising in only seven races, making him the biggest known single spender in these elections. Only three of his candidates won.
"There is no way to dance around the issue that in too many races we lost good allies," Michael Brune, the director of the Sierra Club, told a briefing. "We see those people being replaced by people that are against our values."
But the environmental leaders blamed the poor showing on low turnout in an off election year - and continued to insist that climate change was becoming a top-tier issue.
They insisted their effort had put climate change on the electoral map - a big shift from 2012 when virtually no candidates would even utter the words climate change.
This time around, Republican candidates were forced to back away from outright climate denial, the campaigners said.
They noted Cory Gardner, the newly elected Republican Senator from Colorado, had appeared in campaign ads with wind turbines, after earlier disparaging climate science. "Climate denial is an endangered species," Brune said.
LOAD-DATE: November 6, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
415 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 6, 2014 Thursday 4:51 PM GMT
Small islands need debt relief to pay for climate change;
High levels of debt mean some of the countries most vulnerable to climate change can't afford to prepare
BYLINE: Gail Hurley and Nik Sekhran in New York
SECTION: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS NETWORK
LENGTH: 1000 words
When the Pacific island of Samoa hosted the United Nations's third International Conference on Small Island Developing States (Sids) in September 2014, the entire island was decorated with the flags of fellow small islands and with children's paintings of forests and marine life. Outside shops and homes banners read "welcome" and "there is hope".
Rarely does an entire nation get behind something as wholeheartedly as the Samoans did. It was a novelty for an island nation of 190,000 to host more than 3,000 people from around the world. But Samoa's embrace of the event was also indicative of the scale of what is at stake. Climate change threatens to not only undo years of development progress in small islands but to potentially erase whole countries and cultures. Writing in the Guardian this summer, the Prime Minister of Samoa said simply : "we are drowning."
Sids' climate change adaptation needs are among the highest in the world when measured as a proportion of national output. As the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) explained recently to the Guardian, the upfront costs of such investments are simply too high for small economies to bear.
And by almost any measure, Sids are the most heavily indebted countries in the world (although there are important differences among countries). In 2013, Sids' debt to GDP ratios stood at, on average, 64.3% as compared to 34.4% for developing countries as a whole. In the Caribbean, debt ratios are higher still. Public debt levels amounted to, on average, over 80% of GDP in 2013.
But with small populations and limited political influence, small islands are not typically high on larger and wealthier countries' priority lists. Less than 3% of OECD donors' development aid is allocated to Sids, and their share has steadily declined over recent years. Aid is also heavily concentrated in just a few countries, such as Haiti, the Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste. South-South Cooperation has expanded - China has become an important provider of financial assistance in the Caribbean and the Pacific - but financing gaps are still high.
Sids are also, in many ways, success stories. Barbados and the Seychelles enjoy high per capita incomes and several - including the Bahamas, Fiji, Mauritius, and Trinidad and Tobago - rank highly on the UNDP's Human Development Index. The flip-side is they are then locked-out of concessional finance (loans extended at below-market rates). Many Sids must rely on private finance to meet fiscal deficits and fund development. Such sources of funds, however, are more expensive, short-term, volatile, and may not expand opportunities for real sustainable development.
Many Sids experience increasingly frequent extreme weather events, resulting in serious development setbacks and heavy reconstruction costs. In 2004, Hurricane Ivan caused damage estimated at over 200% of GDP in Grenada, and in the same year, the Indian Ocean tsunami left some parts of the Maldives almost entirely submerged. With climate funds so desperately needed but incredibly complex to access, the conditions for a perfect storm in the form of high public debt are created.
So what can be done? The UNDP works with partners around the world to draw attention to these realities, and to explore constructive solutions.
We believe that for some countries, comprehensive debt relief will be required in order to restore debt sustainability. The details of such a debt relief programme still require further work, but we can draw on valuable lessons learned from the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, which recently expanded debt cancellation to some of the world's poorest countries. Debt swaps for climate change adaption may also be useful to some Sids, as they attempt to increase spending in invaluable areas such as marine conservation. Of course, debt cancellation should be additional to development aid and not detract from the resources available to other developing countries.
We also believe we need to take another look at the rules on eligibility for concessional finance. We ask whether it is appropriate for countries disproportionately exposed to extreme weather events and climate change to rely on more expensive and volatile sources of funds. Should we not also take countries' vulnerabilities into consideration? And if so, how?
It will also be important to think about how the international community can simplify access to climate finance in the future so that small countries (as well as the poorest) are not overwhelmed. And are there innovative financial products and services which could be useful and made available to Sids?
In the run-up to the third UN conference on financing for development which will take place in Addis Ababa in July 2015, we will be working with other partners, such as the OECD, Caricom, the Pacific Island Forum Secretariat and the Commonwealth Secretariat to look at how we can improve the current financing for development architecture for small island economies. We warmly welcome inputs from other stakeholders as we collectively explore all the options on the table. As proud custodians of some of the world's most precious natural resources, our oceans (and more), the fate of small island developing states concerns us all.
Gail Hurley is a policy specialist on development finance and Nik Sekhran is director of sustainable development at the UNDP's Bureau for Policy and Programme Support. Follow @gailmlhurley and @niksekhran on Twitter.
Read more stories like this :
· UN proposal of debt relief for climate adaptation divides aid reports· Should donors peg aid to the environment?· 10 ways to sustain momentum after the People's Climate March· Advertisement feature: Ten young film crews, ten inspiring climate films
Join our community of development professionals and humanitarians. Follow @GuardianGDP on Twitter.
LOAD-DATE: November 6, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
416 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 6, 2014 Thursday 2:35 PM GMT
Climate denier Jim Inhofe in line for Senate's top environmental job;
Obama's faces a fight to protect his climate change agenda after midterm results suggest Senate's top environmental post will fall to Republican stalwart of climate denial
BYLINE: Suzanne Goldenberg
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 998 words
The Senate's top environmental job is about to fall to Jim Inhofe, one of the biggest names in US climate denial, but campaigners say Barack Obama will fight to protect his global warming agenda.
Oklahoma Republican Inhofe has been denying the science behind climate change for 20 years - long before it became a cause for the conservative tea party wing. Following midterm elections which saw the Republicans take control of the senate, he is now expected to become the chairman of the senate environment and public works committee.
However, Obama is expected to protect his signature power plant rules from Republican attacks, and to live up to his earlier commitments to a global deal on fight climate change.
"We think he sees this as a critically important part of his second term legacy and there is no reason why he should not continue to go forward on this... both domestically and around the world," Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, told a press briefing.
The campaigners were less clear, however, how far Obama would be willing to fight to block the Keystone XL pipeline project.
Obama will get a chance to show he is still committed to fighting climate change during a trip to Beijing next week, where the US and Chinese are expected to announce new energy co-operation.
Extracting a pledge from China to cut emissions is hugely important now for Obama, who faces growing pressure from Republicans to demonstrate that other countries beyond the US - especially the high-emissions, rising economies - are acting on climate change.
"It is a domestic political imperative for the president to gain emissions reductions from China and other major emitters as much as it is an international policy goal," said Paul Bledsoe, a climate change official in the Clinton White House.
"The president is under increasing pressure to gain emissions reductions from China and other major emitters in order to justify US domestic mitigation policy. That is going to be the spin Republicans put on it - that we are wasting our time with domestic emissions reductions because they will be swamped by developing countries' pollution."
Obama is going to feel that pressure the most from Congress. With his opponents now in control of both houses, the top slot on the Senate's environment and public works committee passes from a climate defender, the California Democrat, Barbara Boxer, to Inhofe.
He published a book in 2012 calling global warming a hoax, and has compared the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Gestapo.
A spokeswoman for Inhofe said his first concern was passing the defence budget, and that he would make no comment on his leadership roles until next week.
But if, as expected, Inhofe becomes the new committee chair next January, he will probably try to dismantle the EPA rules cutting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants - the centrepiece of Obama's environmental agenda.
Industry lobbyists and campaigners said Inhofe lacked the votes to throw out the power plant rules entirely.
Obama would also veto any such move, said Scott Segal, an energy and coal lobbyist with Bracewell & Giuliani.
"I'm not sure we have the votes to advance those across the finish line particularly if they are vetoed," Segal told a conference call with reporters. Instead, he said he expected "tailored changes", which could weaken the rules.
Bledsoe did expect, however, that Obama will sign off on the controversial Keystone XL project early next year.
Republicans have said approving the pipeline, built to pump tar sands crude to Texas Gulf Coast refineries, would be an early order of business.
Obama in his post-election press conference gave no indication what he would decide. But Bledsoe said: "I actually believe the president is likely to approve the piepline and in the process deny Republicans a politically potent issue."
From his perch in the Senate, Inhofe is expected to launch multiple investigations into the EPA - including Republican charges that the agency leaned heavily on a campaign group in drafting the proposed new rules.
But as committee chair, Inhofe is unlikely to indulge in quite the same level of theatrics on climate denial, said RL Miller, a California lawyer and founder of the grassroots organising group, Climate Hawks Vote.
"I expect we are going to see less headline-grabbing efforts on the EPA and more of simply throttling their budget," Miller said. "If he touches climate denial at all he is going to be ridiculed in public and in the media. If he is smart, he is going to be very quiet publicly, and it will be death by a thousand cuts in the kind of budget battles that people like Jon Stewart don't pay attention to."
Despite their upbeat postures, Tuesday's results were a big setback for campaign groups which had invested an unprecedented amount in trying to elect pro-climate candidates to Congress.
The former hedge fund billionaire, Tom Steyer, spent nearly $75m on advertising and organising in only seven races, making him the biggest known single spender in these elections. Only three of his candidates won.
"There is no way to dance around the issue that in too many races we lost good allies," Michael Brune, the director of the Sierra Club, told a briefing. "We see those people being replaced by people that are against our values."
But the environmental leaders blamed the poor showing on low turnout in an off election year - and continued to insist that climate change was becoming a top-tier issue.
They insisted their effort had put climate change on the electoral map - a big shift from 2012 when virtually no candidates would even utter the words climate change.
This time around, Republican candidates were forced to back away from outright climate denial, the campaigners said.
They noted Cory Gardner, the newly elected Republican Senator from Colorado, had appeared in campaign ads with wind turbines, after earlier disparaging climate science. "Climate denial is an endangered species," Brune said.
LOAD-DATE: November 6, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
417 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 6, 2014 Thursday 11:28 AM GMT
IPCC: rapid carbon emission cuts vital to stop severe impact of climate change;
Most important assessment of global warming yet warns carbon emissions must be cut sharply and soon, but UN's IPCC says solutions are available and affordable
BYLINE: Damian Carrington in Copenhagen
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1615 words
Climate change is set to inflict "severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts" on people and the natural world unless carbon emissions are cut sharply and rapidly, according to the most important assessment of global warming yet published.
The stark report states that climate change has already increased the risk of severe heatwaves and other extreme weather and warns of worse to come, including food shortages and violent conflicts. But it also found that ways to avoid dangerous global warming are both available and affordable.
"Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in the message," said the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, attending what he described as the "historic" report launch. "Leaders must act. Time is not on our side." He said that quick, decisive action would build a better and sustainable future, while inaction would be costly.
Ban added a message to investors, such as pension fund managers: "Please reduce your investments in the coal- and fossil fuel-based economy and [move] to renewable energy."
The report, released in Copenhagen on Sunday by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is the work of thousands of scientists and was agreed after negotiations by the world's governments. It is the first IPCC report since 2007 to bring together all aspects of tackling climate change and for the first time states: that it is economically affordable; that carbon emissions will ultimately have to fall to zero; and that global poverty can only be reduced by halting global warming. The report also makes clear that carbon emissions, mainly from burning coal, oil and gas, are currently rising to record levels, not falling.
The report comes at a critical time for international action on climate change, with the deadline for a global deal just over a year away. In September, 120 national leaders met at the UN in New York to address climate change, while hundreds of thousands of marchers around the world demanded action.
"We have the means to limit climate change," said Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC. "The solutions are many and allow for continued economic and human development. All we need is the will to change."
Lord Nicholas Stern, a professor at the London School of Economics and the author of an influential earlier study, said the new IPCC report was the " most important assessment of climate change ever prepared " and that it made plain that "further delays in tackling climate change would be dangerous and profoundly irrational".
"The reality of climate change is undeniable, and cannot be simply wished away by politicians who lack the courage to confront the scientific evidence," he said, adding that the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people were at risk.
Ed Davey, the UK energy and climate change secretary, said: "This is the most comprehensive and robust assessment ever produced. It sends a clear message: we must act on climate change now. John Kerry, the US secretary of state, said: "This is another canary in the coal mine. We can't prevent a large scale disaster if we don't heed this kind of hard science."
Bill McKibben, a high-profile climate campaigner with 350.org, said: "For scientists, conservative by nature, to use 'serious, pervasive, and irreversible' to describe the effects of climate falls just short of announcing that climate change will produce a zombie apocalypse plus random beheadings plus Ebola." Breaking the power of the fossil fuel industry would not be easy, McKibben said. "But, thanks to the IPCC, no one will ever be able to say they weren't warned."
The new overarching IPCC report builds on previous reports on the science, impacts and solutions for climate change. It concludes that global warming is "unequivocal", that humanity's role in causing it is "clear" and that many effects will last for hundreds to thousands of years even if the planet's rising temperature is halted.
In terms of impacts, such as heatwaves and extreme rain storms causing floods, the report concludes that the effects are already being felt: "In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans."
Droughts, coastal storm surges from the rising oceans and wildlife extinctions on land and in the seas will all worsen unless emissions are cut, the report states. This will have knock-on effects, according to the IPCC: "Climate change is projected to undermine food security." The report also found the risk of wars could increase: "Climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts by amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks."
Two-thirds of all the emissions permissible if dangerous climate change is to be avoided have already been pumped into the atmosphere, the IPPC found. The lowest cost route to stopping dangerous warming would be for emissions to peak by 2020 - an extremely challenging goal - and then fall to zero later this century.
The report calculates that to prevent dangerous climate change, investment in low-carbon electricity and energy efficiency will have to rise by several hundred billion dollars a year before 2030. But it also found that delaying significant emission cuts to 2030 puts up the cost of reducing carbon dioxide by almost 50%, partly because dirty power stations would have to be closed early. "If you wait, you also have to do more difficult and expensive things," said Jim Skea, a professor at Imperial College London and an IPCC working group vice-chair.
Tackling climate change need only trim economic growth rates by a tiny fraction, the IPCC states, and may actually improve growth by providing other benefits, such as cutting health-damaging air pollution.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) - the nascent technology which aims to bury CO2 underground - is deemed extremely important by the IPPC. It estimates that the cost of the big emissions cuts required would more than double without CCS. Pachauri said: "With CCS it is entirely possible for fossil fuels to continue to be used on a large scale."
The focus on CCS is not because the technology has advanced a great deal in recent years, said Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a professor at the Université Catholique de Louvain in Belgium and vice-chair of the IPCC, but because emissions have continued to increase so quickly. "We have emitted so much more, so we have to clean up more later", he said.
Linking CCS to the burning of wood and other plant fuels would reduce atmospheric CO2 levels because the carbon they contain is sucked from the air as they grow. But van Ypersele said the IPCC report also states "very honestly and fairly" that there are risks to this approach, such as conflicts with food security.
In contrast to the importance the IPCC gives to CCS, abandoning nuclear power or deploying only limited wind or solar power increases the cost of emission cuts by just 6-7%. The report also states that behavioural changes, such as dietary changes that could involve eating less meat, can have a role in cutting emissions.
As part of setting out how the world's nations can cut emissions effectively, the IPCC report gives prominence to ethical considerations. "[Carbon emission cuts] and adaptation raise issues of equity, justice, and fairness," says the report. "The evidence suggests that outcomes seen as equitable can lead to more effective [international] cooperation."
These issues are central to the global climate change negotiations and their inclusion in the report was welcomed by campaigners, as was the statement that adapting countries and coastlines to cope with global warming cannot by itself avert serious impacts.
"Rich governments must stop making empty promises and come up with the cash so the poorest do not have to foot the bill for the lifestyles of the wealthy," said Harjeet Singh, from ActionAid.
The statement that carbon emissions must fall to zero was "gamechanging", according to Kaisa Kosonen, from Greenpeace. "We can still limit warming to 2C, or even 1.5C or less even, [but] we need to phase out emissions," she said. Unlike CCS, which is yet to be proven commercially, she said renewable energy was falling rapidly in cost.
Sam Smith, from WWF, said: "The big change in this report is that it shows fighting climate change is not going to cripple economies and that it is essential to bringing people out of poverty. What is needed now is concerted political action." The rapid response of politicians to the recent global financial crisis showed, according to Smith, that "they could act quickly and at scale if they are sufficiently motivated".
Michel Jarraud, secretary general of the World Meteorological Organisation, said the much greater certainty expressed in the new IPCC report would give international climate talks a better chance than those which failed in 2009. "Ignorance can no longer be an excuse for no action," he said.
Observers played down the moves made by some countries with large fossil fuel reserves to weaken the language of the draft IPCC report written by scientists and seen by the Guardian, saying the final report was conservative but strong.
However, the statement that "climate change is expected to lead to increases in ill-health in many regions, including greater likelihood of death" was deleted in the final report, along with criticism that politicians sometimes "engage in short-term thinking and are biased toward the status quo".
· This article was amended on 6 November 2014 to remove a picture of Singapore because the caption said: "Singapore shrouded by a haze as carbon emissions soar". The haze in the picture was caused by forest fires.
LOAD-DATE: November 6, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
418 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 5, 2014 Wednesday 9:18 AM GMT
Church of England 'failing to heed call to divest from fossil fuels';
Despite advice from Desmond Tutu to divest from of coal, oil and gas, the Church of England is choosing to delay a decision until late 2015, says climate activist Bill McKibben
BYLINE: Adam Vaughan
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 924 words
The Church of England (CoE) is failing to heed the advice of Desmond Tutu to pull its investments out of fossil fuels, according to Bill McKibben, one of the world's top climate activists.
The retired Anglican Archbishop of South Africa said in April that organisations should divest from coal, gas and oil companies, a call he later reiterated when he said the divestment campaign was "a moral movement to persuade fossil fuel companies away from a business model that threatens our very survival".
McKibben, a US author and co-founder of environmental group 350.org, told the Guardian that the CoE was dragging its heels when it comes to dropping fossil fuel investments from its £5.2bn fund.
The CoE has set up a group to take advice on climate change and investment, but a decision on whether or not the church should divest is not expected until next year.
"Their response so far has been to say that they'll study it until late 2015, which means they will have examined it for a period slightly longer than Jesus's public ministry. It's not exactly what Desmond Tutu had in mind.
"If there was ever a moment when we needed strong moral leadership, this is the moment."
The CoE did not respond to requests for details of when a decision might be expected.
In a letter to Church of England newspaper last month, Richard A. Burridge, deputy chair of the ethical advisory group that advises the CoE's investment bodies, said fossil fuel divestment was not necessarily a silver bullet to the threat from climate change.
"Carbon emissions remain so embedded in our economic system that the EIAG's [Ethical Investment Advisory Group] ethical investment policy recommendation will need to be sophisticated."Any response will need to reflect both realism and risk in a way which acknowledges both the nature of the threat and our ability to contribute to a meaningful response," he wrote.
"I have no doubt eventually they'll do the right thing, I have no doubt eventually everyone will do the right thing. The problem is we don't have eventually with which to work," added McKibben, who has become the figurehead for an international movement that has seen divestments by churches, universities, businesses, individuals and local government valued at over $50bn.
Glasgow University recently became the first university in Europe to vote to divest from fossil fuels, prompting five geology and engineering academics at the university to hit out at what they called "vacuous posturing" because the institution and Scotland still rely on fossil fuels for energy.
"That's a terrible argument, that's the worst possible argument," said McKibben of the staffers' letter. "We'll change once it's no longer necessary, then we'll be in favour of changing."
But he said the backlash had been greatest in Australia, where Australia National University (ANU) last month decided to ditch its fossil fuel investments, a move the prime minister, Tony Abbott, called a "stupid decision".
"The backlash has been the most intense in Australia... within days half the government of Australia was attacking them [ANU], and to their credit they held their ground.
"If it wasn't going to make any difference then the prime minister of Australia wouldn't be up in arms about it. He has a much stronger sense of the threat."
McKibben was also highly critical of a recent capitulation by the EU to Canada over a proposal to label oil from tar sands as highly polluting, which would have effectively banned the carbon-intensive fuel from Europe. In October, the EU abandoned the so-called fuel quality directive, just weeks before EU leaders agreed to cut carbon emissions 40% by 2030.
"That was depressing as could be. It's clearly an intellectual dishonesty. Canada puts enormous pressure, their diplomatic corps is essentially just a bunch of salesmen for tar sands. Canada and Australia have become the two biggest rogue nations on the planet.
"It makes one worry about EU resolve to actually do anything, as to whether or not these headline numbers of 40% add up to anything. You can't have your cake and eat it."
The US president, Barack Obama, had shown similar contradictions, McKibben said.
"Obama's great at it too, busy drilling for oil everywhere while talking a good game about it.
"He's better than George Bush but I've drunk more beer than my 14-year old niece. He's done a few good things, but judged against the size of the crisis it will be a largely wasted eight years."
Obama's move to force US car makers to commit to new fuel economy standards over the next decade would be the president's lasting environment legacy, the 53 year-old campaigner said.
McKibben highlighted an organised day of climate marches around the world in September, which saw a reported 400,000 people on the streets of New York, as a sign that the movement for action on climate change was reaching a critical mass.
"I think when people write the history of this whole period, they'll do worse than to pick the 21 of September as the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel industry, with 400,000 people in the streets of New York and the Rockefellers announcing they're divesting.
"The only question is how fast that end will come. On that question hinges whether we have a habitable world or not. If we can do it in 25 years, then we've got a shot, not at stopping global warming but stopping it getting entirely out of control. If we take 50 or 60 years, then forget it, the science couldn't be clearer."
McKibben was speaking in London ahead of a talk at at the London School of Economics on Tuesday.
LOAD-DATE: November 5, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
419 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 5, 2014 Wednesday 5:17 AM GMT
Tasmanian devils' decline 'driven by climate change', new research shows;
Widespread hunting and facial tumour disease not primary reason for low genetic diversity and historic population slumps
BYLINE: Oliver Milman
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 459 words
Tasmanian devils' low genetic diversity and previous population declines were driven by climate change rather than hunting or a rampant facial tumour disease, new research has found.
A study of the largest ever genetic dataset of Tasmanian devils found that widespread bounty hunting of the animals after European settlement of Australia is not the primary reason for the species' worryingly small gene pool. Nor is the devil tumour disease that was discovered in 1996 and has been blamed for a 90% decline in devil numbers in some places.
Researchers found that Tasmanian devils have, in fact, lived with low genetic diversity for thousands of years, having suffered two huge population drops, wiping out around 80% of animals in the past 50,000 years.
The first population slump occurred during the last ice age, around 20,000 years ago, with the next decline occurring 3,000 to 5,000 ago when the climate became much drier. Tasmanian devils were once spread across Australia but are now confined to Tasmania.
The research suggests that climate change is a much larger threat to Tasmanian devils than previously thought, with current warming temperatures and the facial tumour disease raising major concerns over the species's future.
"Insurance" populations of Tasmanian devils have been established since 2005 in places such as Maria Island in Tasmania, in order to avert the immediate threat of extinction from the facial disease. Tumours are spread between devils when the pugnacious marsupials clash heads while fighting or tussling over food.
However, the paucity of genetic diversity among Tasmanian devils poses a threat as it exposes the animals, which are Australia's largest carnivorous marsupials, to a greater risk of disease.
Anna Brüniche-Olsen of the University of Tasmania, who led the research, said devils are "very susceptible" to climate change.
"When the climate became more arid with more scrub and grass, it really impacts [on] their numbers," she told Guardian Australia.
"Tasmanian devils are facing a real extinction threat. Tumours are the here-and-now threat and climate change is the next big threat. Given the impact a more arid climate has had on devils in the past, we should be really worried.
"The genetic diversity is really low at the moment, which is always a risk because if a disease spreads there is less potential for the devils to adapt. That's why it's important that their numbers are managed to conserve as much genetic diversity as possible."
The researchers, from the University of Tasmania and University of Adelaide, used genetic markers to compare genes across individual Tasmanian devils. Once genetic diversity is identified, researchers can build ancestral trees that can allow estimates of previous populations.
LOAD-DATE: November 5, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
420 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 5, 2014 Wednesday 5:00 AM GMT
Risk of floods in England up due to cuts in government funding, say NAO;
Flood defence spending has fallen by 10% over course of this government leaving half of country's defences with 'minimal' maintenance, says National Audit Office report
BYLINE: Damian Carrington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 833 words
The risk of flooding is rising as a result of government funding cuts, according to a damning report from the National Audit Office (NAO), which says the cuts are a false economy. Half the nation's flood defences have been left with "minimal" maintenance, according to the spending watchdog.
Flooding devastated large parts of England after record rainfall last winter and David Cameron delivered £270m of emergency funding, claiming his government was now spending more than ever before.
However, the NAO concluded spending on maintenance had fallen by 6% in real terms in the five years of the coalition government. Furthermore, overall funding had fallen by 10% in real terms, said the NAO, when the one-off emergency funding was excluded.
The report also found that 86% of local authorities had failed to publish their flood risk strategies despite being required to do so by ministers since 2011.
Five million homes in England are at risk of flooding and the government's own assessment shows climate change is increasing the risk by driving more extreme weather. The NAO report, published on Wednesday, said every £1 spent on flood defences prevented almost £10 in damage. The report noted: "Ad-hoc emergency spending is less good value than sustained maintenance."
"The underlying spending on flood defences has gone down," said NAO auditor general, Amyas Morse. "Difficult decisions about whether to continue maintaining defences in some areas or let them lapse [must be made], increasing in future both the risk of floods and the potential need for more expensive ad-hoc emergency solutions."
Margaret Hodge MP, chair of parliament's Public Accounts Committee, said: "I am deeply concerned that current levels of spending are not enough to maintain flood protection." She said the cuts by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) were "alarming" and described the extra £270m as an "emergency bailout".
Flooding minister Dan Rogerson said the NAO, which scrutinises public spending on behalf of parliament, had used the wrong numbers. ?
"The NAO has drawn conclusions on funding based on inappropriate comparisons. We have invested £3.2bn in flood management and defences over the course of this parliament which is a real-term increase." The government prefers to compare the six-year period after the 2010 election with the six years before. The latter includes several low-spending years, before major floods in 2007 led to a sharp rise in spending.
Rogerson added: "We are also ensuring that our investment strategy will deliver long-term value for money by setting out the first ever six-year programme."
The NAO report concluded: "The achievement of value for money in the long term remains significantly uncertain."
"Cameron promised that ' money was no object ' when it came to flooding but the NAO report makes clear that spending on flood defences is down," said Maria Eagle, shadow environment secretary. "Ignoring the evidence on climate change has led to the government making the wrong choices." She said a Labour government would "reprioritise" long-term spending to cut flood risk.
"The NAO report highlights the need for proper flood risk management and the need to invest in it now," said Paul Cobbing, chief executive of the National Flood Forum, which represents and supports community groups. "We have to rise to the challenge because clearly what we are doing at the moment is not creating safer communities."
The NAO report praised the Environment Agency (EA), which builds and manages England's flood defences. "In the face of increasing flood risk and pressure on defences, the EA has improved the cost effectiveness of its flood risk spending... It is achieving value for money."
But the NAO said the EA had failed to tell local communities about cutbacks in maintenance spending on defences in some areas. "It will be very worrying for communities who may not know what is going on," said Cobbing. "People also feel they are not being listened to."
MPs warned the government in June that devastating winter floods could hit England again unless cuts to flood defence budgets were reversed. Money for the maintenance of rivers and flood defences was at the "bare minimum", they said.
In February, the Guardian revealed that flood-stricken communities, including those visited by David Cameron in the Somerset Levels and Kent, had been left without planned defences following government funding cuts, as were defences in the Thames Valley. In 2012, the Guardian also revealed that 294 flood defence schemes across England had been left unbuilt due to budget cuts.
Friends of the Earth's Guy Shrubsole said: "The NAO's findings are a damning indictment of government neglect. The coalition is letting flood defences crumble as sea levels rise and extreme weather worsens." He said the government must plug the £500m hole in flood defence spending identified by its official advisers, the Committee on Climate Change.
LOAD-DATE: November 5, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
421 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 5, 2014 Wednesday 1:45 AM GMT
Fossil fuel ads approved by Brisbane airport despite political intent;
Activist groups hoping to attract the attention of G20 delegates had their adverts declined - but Chevron and the controversial Reef Facts campaign were given the green light
BYLINE: Alan Evans
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 521 words
Three advertisements have been banned from appearing in Brisbane airport because they were deemed "too political" - but it has emerged that similar material from energy giant Chevron and the Queensland government's controversial mining-funded Reef Facts campaign was approved.
In the run-up to the G20 meeting in Brisbane this month, activist groups tried to place adverts inside the terminal, but were rebuffed by Ooh Media, the airport's media buyer.
As Guardian Australia revealed on Sunday, environment and development groups led by the WWF attempted to place a billboard ad depicting a farmer calling for action on climate change, featuring the words: "Action on climate change is #onmyagenda, Dear G20 leaders please put it on yours."
The groups agreed to remove the words "Dear G20 leaders", but Ooh Media still rejected the new advert.
On Tuesday it emerged that campaign group Transparency International had had its own billboard advertisement rejected for the same reasons - it was "too political".
Reading "Dirty money not welcome here. G20, it's time to: unmaskthecorrupt.com", the billboard was designed to urge global leaders to support anti-corruption principles being discussed at the summit.
Again though, Brisbane rejected the advertisement, saying its policy did not allow billboards with a political intent.
A spokeswoman said the policy ruled out advertising, whether by political parties, groups or individuals, that was "focused on a particular policy issue that is the subject of political contention". There was no value judgment made about the message, she said.
Also on Tuesday, civil society forum C20 was told that the airport would not carry its planned lightbox advertisements.
"We can talk to leaders as an official engagement group, but it seems we can't talk to the public," C20 spokesman John Lindsay told reporters.
But earlier this year the airport hosted adverts as part of a campaign by the Queensland government.
The adverts pointed people to a government website which drew criticism for its selective use of statistics to imply that dredging, dumping and shipping were not having an adverse effect on the Great Barrier Reef.
But the campaign was not considered too political under the airport's policy.
"Our judgment is that government advertising on government programs does not constitute advertising with a political intent," a spokeswoman said.
Likewise, adverts promoting Chevron's "We Agree" campaign were not deemed too political and were allowed to be placed in the airport.
According to Business Spectator, Brisbane airport's head of corporate relations, Rachel Crowley, acknowledged that Chevron's ads had a political purpose - but did not row back on the bans on the WWF, Transparency International and C20 displays.
· This article was amended on 5 November 2014 to make it clear that the Queensland government's "Reef Facts" campaign was not funded by the Queensland Resources Council. The QRC ran a separate advertisement which directed people to the Reef Facts website, but did not pay for of have any control over the contents of the website.
LOAD-DATE: November 5, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
422 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 5, 2014 Wednesday
Late Edition - Final
Republicans, Meet Science
BYLINE: By FRANK BRUNI
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; OP-ED COLUMNIST; Pg. 19
LENGTH: 821 words
Just days before the midterm elections, we got the latest alarm: The globe is heating up like a griddle, and we're just lolling here like eggs.
This happened on Sunday, when a United Nations panel issued what The Times called its ''starkest warning yet.'' But while the report made headlines, it didn't make the campaign. Like other big issues being shelved for some later, scarier day, climate change wasn't high on the agenda, especially for Republicans.
As expected, they fared much better than Democrats did in Tuesday's voting. Come January, they will take control of the Senate. However else they use it, I fervently hope that they start to show more respect for science.
The refusal to accept or respond adequately to climate change is the most obvious example of their disregard -- and one of the most enraging ones. In a recent story in The Times, Coral Davenport described the maddening tendency of top Republicans, including Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, to deflect questions about greenhouse gases and volatile weather patterns with some version of the cop-out: ''Well, I'm not a scientist.''
No, they're not. But there are estimable ones all around Washington and the rest of the sizzling globe, and they're happy to share their wisdom. The United Nations panel did precisely that, cautioning that a continued failure to reduce emissions of those gases would yield ''food shortages, refugee crises, the flooding of major cities and entire island nations, mass extinctions of plants and animals, and a climate so drastically altered it might become dangerous for people to work or play outside during the hottest times of the year,'' as The Times's Justin Gillis wrote, laying out the stakes. They couldn't be graver.
President Obama used his executive authority earlier this year on a plan to cut emissions some. But Congress has been largely useless, with a relationship to science that toggles between benign neglect and outright contempt. And many Americans have a similarly curious attitude, distinguished by woefully insufficient gratitude for the ways in which science has advanced our country and elevated our lives.
On the one hand, we're enthralled by the idea and occasional romance of science. We certainly love it in our popular entertainment. The most watched comedy on television is ''The Big Bang Theory,'' which showcases physicists. Their social fumbling is lampooned, but their brainpower is revered.
The biggest event of the fall movie season is the space extravaganza ''Interstellar,'' which opens this week and is so chockablock with sophisticated physics and rife with cosmological argot that Time magazine assigned a cover story not to a Hollywood reporter but to the senior editor who supervises science coverage.
And Bill Nye, ''the Science Guy,'' has become a veritable cultural icon.
But look at the title of his new book on evolution, also out this week. It's called ''Undeniable,'' because, yes, there are many Americans who still deny what Darwin and other scientists long ago proved. They elect mysticism over empiricism.
And you can't chalk that up to religious fervor alone. Plenty of Americans without any strong religious beliefs opt not to vaccinate their children, ignoring the ironclad scientific arguments in favor of doing so. Plenty reject the virtues of pasteurization and feed their children raw milk. Plenty spend lavishly on herbal supplements and alternative medicine, defying physicians and deciding when myth suits them better than actual fact.
But that kind of fickle approach to science is most troubling in the people who make our laws. As several bloggers and journalists have noted, some Republicans say they're not qualified to address global warming even as they opine readily and expansively on Ebola. They fault the appointed ''Ebola czar'' for not being a doctor, then reject what actual doctors tell us about the disease.
If they had proper regard for science, politicians in both parties would fight harder against the devastating cuts to federal research that have happened under sequestration, endangering medical progress and jeopardizing our global leadership. And lawmakers trying to prove their fiscal prudence wouldn't irresponsibly smear all scientific inquiry by cherry-picking and theatrically denouncing the most arcane, seemingly frivolous studies the government has funded.
If science held the sway it should, the onetime Senate candidate Todd Akin wouldn't have bought into and mentioned his ludicrous theory that ''legitimate rape'' precluded pregnancy, and the Republican flamethrower Ted Cruz might have to surrender his florid homophobia, which is reliant on his fantasy that same-sex attractions are some whimsical ''personal choices.''
And with the right fealty to science, this next Congress would be forced to accept the overwhelming consensus on climate change and take action. It's time to wise up and stop wasting all the knowledge we have.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/opinion/frank-bruni-republicans-meet-science.html
LOAD-DATE: November 5, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Op-Ed
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
423 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 5, 2014 Wednesday
Late Edition - Final
Climate Change: Questions for Colleges
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; LETTERS; Pg. 18
LENGTH: 809 words
To the Editor:
Re ''The Missing Campus Climate Debate'' (Sunday Review, Nov. 2):
Evan J. Mandery brings welcome attention to continuing efforts by students and faculty at more than 400 colleges to press their administrations to divest from fossil-fuel energy companies. In many cases, however, he does not go far enough in calling out the flawed logic of the arguments against divestment by the university presidents he cites.
Arguments like the one put forward by Bruce Shepard, the president of Western Washington University -- that divestment would ''have no material effect on climate change'' -- miss the point. Divestment is largely a symbolic exercise, and widespread action by many universities would send a powerful message to the public and other investors about the problematic ethics of such investments.
Most troubling of all is the claim by Drew Gilpin Faust, the president of Harvard University, that it is inconsistent for universities to boycott an industry when they rely extensively on its products and services. According to that logic, the United States should have never discontinued the practice of slavery.
Students, faculty and the broader public must continue to expose and challenge these weak arguments against divestment and encourage universities to divest and commit more of their considerable financial resources to reducing their reliance on fossil fuels.
MATTHEW A. LEHTONEN Washington, Nov. 2, 2014
The writer is a master's candidate in global environmental politics at American University.
To the Editor:
In a struggling economy, phasing out lower cost energy sources without relatively cost-competitive alternatives is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
To make this transition doable for financially strapped voters requires government-financed, Manhattan Project-like development of affordable alternatives that will minimize the economic disruption of this transition.
CHARLES M. FINCH Huntington Beach, Calif., Nov. 2, 2014
To the Editor:
Evan J. Mandery is right that ''climate change is our era's defining challenge,'' but the entire issue of fossil fuel divestment should not be the main debate. Whether a university is invested in fossil fuel or not is not the important question.
The real question is if that university has a plant-based dining hall, or at the very least, does it support Meatless Mondays and other initiatives intended to lessen our consumption of animal products.
Methane and nitrous oxide are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide, and the No. 1 source of such gases is the billions of chickens, turkeys, pigs and cows raised for food.
According to the United Nations, animal agriculture is responsible for more global warming than all forms of transportation combined, and a global shift to a plant-based diet is necessary to combat the worst effects of climate change.
As president of the Vegetarian/Vegan Society at Brown University, a group that tries to raise awareness of such benefits of a plant-based diet, I have found that it is much easier to get college students to rally for their school's divestment from coal than it is to get them to take personal initiative.
The looming danger of climate change can be either greatly lessened or greatly worsened depending on the amount of meat and dairy on our plates. University presidents can take the lead in this effort; it would be a big step in the right direction.
ADAM HOROWITZ Providence, R.I., Nov. 2, 2014
To the Editor:
Evan J. Mandery promotes the theory that if you sell or refuse to own energy stocks, you will somehow ''save'' the climate. But smart investors will be able to buy good stocks more cheaply and benefit from the dividends they pay.
I agree with Drew Gilpin Faust, the president of Harvard: Boycotting companies that provide us with products that permit us our comfortable lives is ''a troubling inconsistency.''
Unless a micro-size nuclear engine that can power an airplane or a car is in our future, we will be using fossil fuels, liquid and solid, for the lifetime of all of us.
PAUL A. RUBINSTEIN New York, Nov. 2, 2014
To the Editor:
The voices of college students, faculty and administrators need to be heard in the discussion of whether or not university endowments divest from fossil fuel, but another powerful force in moving universities to more ethical investing would be alumni. After all, alumni contribute millions of dollars every year to university foundations.
What would happen if we notified our schools that we are cutting our donations this year by the same percentage as represented by their investment in fossil fuel companies?
The recent United Nations report on climate change (news article, Nov. 3) should be reason enough for all of us, private investors and university endowment funds alike, to take a more ethical stance in investing our money.
DIANE J. SHEARER Tucker, Ga., Nov. 3, 2014
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/opinion/climate-change-questions-for-colleges.html
LOAD-DATE: November 5, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: DRAWING (DRAWING BY ELEANOR TAYLOR)
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Letter
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
424 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Sinosphere)
November 5, 2014 Wednesday
Counting the Varied Costs of a Dependence on Coal
BYLINE: BECKY DAVIS
SECTION: WORLD; asia
LENGTH: 688 words
HIGHLIGHT: A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Chinese partners puts a monetary price on the problems created by the energy source, like air pollution.
The Natural Resources Defense Council has presented research that attempts to take on the Herculean task of quantifying the environmental, social and economic toll of China's reliance on coal.
The report, released Tuesday by the New York-based environmental organization, is part of its China Coal Consumption Cap Project, begun last October in conjunction with Chinese government research organizations, universities and industry groups to help China begin diminishing its use of coal by 2020. Researchers from Tsinghua and Peking universities, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and other government-affiliated bodies worked together to develop concrete figures that, according to the study, show how a broad range of ecological problems and human suffering resulting from coal consumption can be discussed in terms of cold, hard cash.
Yang Fuqiang, senior adviser on energy, environment and climate change at the council, said that the report was a response to China's lack of clear quantitative data on the external costs of coal use. ''In order to understand the true impact of coal, we absolutely must talk about all of the hidden costs to society behind it as an industry.''
The most severe of the costs, air pollution, is readily apparent to the 70 percent of the country's population found by the study to be living in regions where levels exceed World Health Organization recommendations. Coal and coal-related industrial processes account for 50 percent to 60 percent of the airborne pollutants known as PM 2.5 - or particles 2.5 micrometers or smaller - that make their way deep into the lungs, increasing the likelihood of lung cancer, stroke and other diseases. According to the report, approximately 670,000 people died because of PM 2.5 pollution generated by coal use in 2012.
There appears to be little chance that China will ever be completely weaned off coal, despite a decrease in coal consumption for the first time in nearly a century over the first three quarters of this year. There have also been recent high-profile promises to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, including one by Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli at the United Nations climate change summit meeting in September. Yet coal, naturally abundant in the country, accounts for 65 percent of China's primary energy consumption, the report said. China is the world's largest consumer of the resource.
The price of coal in China is now just over 500 renminbi, or a little more than $80, per ton, a seemingly inexpensive energy source. The study, which used data from 2012, when coal cost more than $100, asserts that for every ton, an additional $43 in social costs was imposed on the country. Pricing mechanisms do not reflect this external expenditure, the report said, because coal producers are required to pay an environmental tax of only $5 to $8 per ton. The study also found that it is consumers like factories and power plants rather than mining companies that are responsible for the majority of this social toll, with 64 percent of the total burden coming from the pollutants released during combustion as coal is transformed into electricity for industrial and residential use.
The council and its Chinese partners are developing carbon tax proposals that would take into consideration these ''true costs,'' to adequately offset them.
Zhou Fengqi, senior adviser at the Energy Research Institute - a government-affiliated research group that is part of the National Development and Reform Commission, China's top economic planning agency - applauded the new findings, with reservations. He was skeptical that the goals would be feasible within the span of a single five-year plan. ''If we are going to implement such taxes, it must be done in steps so as not to have a negative effect on the Chinese economy, even in the short term,'' Mr. Zhou said.
But he acknowledged that China could no longer turn a blind eye to its smoggy skies: ''Even in Zhongnanhai'' - the leadership compound in Beijing - ''they're breathing in all this pollution and realize how uncomfortable it is.''
LOAD-DATE: November 5, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
425 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Dot Earth)
November 5, 2014 Wednesday
One Factor Blunting Impact of Green Spending on Election: Inertia
BYLINE: ANDREW C. REVKIN
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 346 words
HIGHLIGHT: What’s missed in debates over the impact of liberal and conservative spending on congressional campaigns.
After the Republican success in the mid-term elections, it's no surprise that a search of Twitter for "Steyer election Koch" - meaning for discussions of the relative impact of the millions spent on campaigns by the liberal billionaire Tom Steyer and the conservative Koch brothers - turns up a lot of heated assertions.
On election night, Peter Dykstra, writing for The Daily Climate, had posted a thorough critique of false equivalence in stories (including in The Times) equating the two efforts to influence races in which coal, climate change or related issues were relevant. He used a baseball analogy, saying Steyer had just entered a game in which the other team has long had "big bats, a huge payroll, and a different rulebook."
But to me, the debate over whose money mattered more and the warning about false equivalence (which is valid) both miss a factor I've been noting for awhile.
The two teams are not playing for the same outcome.
I made this point in a talk a couple of years ago, and Kathy Zhang, then a student, created this simple, but telling, cartoon to illustrate the point:
With last night's political outcomes in mind, which stick figure would you label as Tom Steyer and which as one of the Koch brothers?
Would the relative amounts of spending be the prime factor determining who moved the boulder?
The Koch brothers and their allies want to maintain the status quo, while Steyer and others seeking a political path to a post-carbon economy have an epic challenge in trying to prod Americans out of a fossil-fueled comfort zone that took a century to form.
I'm sure Steyer is in this for the long haul and it's clear that he, like any smart investor, is hedging his environmental bets, putting money into far more than political campaigns.
Given that the fight for new energy norms requires an unlikely mix of urgency and patience, along with relentless experimentation, I'd say he's on a good course.
Addendum | Zhang, who was a student then, is now working in communications for the Sustainable Development Solutions Network. Keep up the good work, Kathy.)
LOAD-DATE: November 5, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
426 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 4, 2014 Tuesday 8:57 PM GMT
Carbon capture and storage research budget slashed despite PM's coal focus;
Tony Abbott has trumpeted coal as the foundation of Australia's energy needs but CCS programs have lost $460m in funding
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 610 words
The government has cut almost half a billion dollars from research into carbon capture and storage - which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deems crucial for continued use of coal - despite the prime minister insisting coal is the "foundation of our prosperity".
Tony Abbott said on Tuesday: "For now and for the foreseeable future, the foundation of Australia's energy needs will be coal. The foundation of the world's energy needs will be coal."
The IPCC synthesis report, released on Monday, found that to limit global warming to 2C "the share of low-carbon electricity supply (comprising renewable energy, nuclear and carbon capture and storage) needs to increase from its current share of approximately 30% to more than 80% by 2050 and 90% by 2100, and fossil fuel power generation without CCS [carbon capture and storage] is phased out almost entirely by 2100".
In the budget the government cut $459.3m over three years from its carbon capture and storage flagship program, leaving $191.7m to continue existing projects for the next seven years. The program had already been cut by the previous Labor government and much of the funding remained unallocated.
The coal industry has "paused" a levy on black coal producers, which was supposed to build a $1bn industry fund to also finance research and demonstration into clean coal technology. It cited low coal prices for the halt. $250m has been spent from the fund on demonstration plants and another $46m worth of grants are under assessment.
The objectives of Coal21, set up in 2006, have also been changed to allow the industry to use funding already collected to promote the use of coal. Its constitution now allows money to be spent on "promoting the use of coal both within Australia and overseas and promoting the economic and social benefits of the coal industry". It is unclear whether any has been spent in this way.
Tony Wood, the energy program director at the Grattan Institute, said: "CCS is the only way Australia, and the world, can keep using coal and also do what it needs to do about climate change, but neither industry nor government seem to be serious about doing anything about it."
Peter Cook, the former head of the CO2 co-operative research centre, and now the head of the Peter Cook centre for CCS research at the University of Melbourne, said Australia was not doing as much as we could or we should. "The research effort is fractured, the government has cut funding ... the coal industry announced their Coal21 fund with great flourish but now they seem to have gone very quiet," he said.
"Australia has lost momentum, lost impetus ... even though we have a greater interest than most countries in this technology working."
The Greens, and many in the conservation movement, have argued that carbon capture and storage does not work and is never going to be viable, and that renewable energy has "won the race".
But John Connor, the chief executive of the Climate Institute, said CCS "has to be one of the clean energy options available because all the modelling says that to avoid temperature rises of more than two degrees, we have to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere".
He was also critical of the efforts of Australian governments and industry. "Apart from a brief flutter of responsibility in the 2000s the industry has gone for the fast bucks and the fancy words rather than actually doing anything," he said.
The G8 summit in Japan in 2008 pledged to build "20 large-scale CCS demonstration projects". The first full-scale CCS power plant, the Boundary Dam Carbon Capture and Storage Project in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, opened last month.
LOAD-DATE: November 5, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
427 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 4, 2014 Tuesday 8:53 PM GMT
Small fish in a big pond: the plight of the lemon damsel fish;
Research by marine scientists into Great Barrier Reef fish populations remind us of the need to protect the tiny creatures in a vast ocean
BYLINE: James Woodford
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 636 words
Back when Bill Clinton was the president of the United States, UTS professor David Booth and his wife Gigi Beretta started an extraordinary experiment that demonstrates the ocean is as small as it is vast.
In 1999, Booth, who is the president of the Australian Coral Reef Society, and Beretta, who trained as a marine scientist in the Caribbean, caught and tagged 532 juvenile lemon damsel fish in the lagoon of One Tree Island off Gladstone in Queensland, and a further 322 in the waters of Lizard Island off Cape York.
They are small but beautiful animals - vivid yellow and found throughout the Great Barrier Reef. Yellow damsels are so spectacular that they are a favourite with the aquarium industry.
Each of the tiny young fish caught by Booth and Beretta was tagged with an elastic polymer that showed up as a dark smudge under their skin. After tagging they were released back onto the patch of reef where they would spend their entire lives.
"We have never found them more than two metres from their home base," said Booth. "They live in a very restricted world."
They are one of the most common species of small colourful fish seen on the Great Barrier Reef and the specimens that the scientists tagged and released were just a small fraction of the local damsel populations.
The goal of Booth's experiment was simple: to find out how long such a tiny homebody can survive in such a dangerous environment, rife with predators and fierce weather.
Booth has returned to One Tree Island almost every year since and recaptured, measured and examined the tagged fish for their physical health before they were released again.
At the time of the first capture, each of the fish's territories was also carefully recorded, which meant that Booth could return by scuba to the exact spot where each fish was released back in 1999.
While clouds of new, untagged, younger yellow damsels covered the reefs, by 2004 only 5% of the original tagged cohort on One Tree Island had survived and none were sighted on Lizard Island after four years.
In 2009 only four were found, including one that, at the time, was declared to be the oldest known living wild damsel fish. It had reached the grand old age of a decade.
Booth caught one last damsel, thought to be 12 years old, in 2011.
While Booth has not ruled out the possibility that a few surviving ancient damsel stragglers may yet be found he is calling the study complete and will soon publish his findings.
Booth is a passionate advocate for marine parks, which protect local habitat including the lagoon of One Tree Island.
He says research such as his damsel study is a reminder that while much reef science and media focus is on issues such as climate change and the potential devastation of the reef by global-scale threats, protecting individual locations is also critical.
"Most of the organisms on the reef spend most of their lives within a very small area," Booth said. "A lot of the time we look at the big picture and we overlook the small scale at which these organisms are actually living."
He said it was critical that people did not get overwhelmed by the huge scale of climate change. A lot could be done to protect habitats at a local level by managing threats such as overfishing and pollution.
"These little fish remind us that we have to keep on chipping away at protecting the small areas and creatures as well as addressing the big issues."
James Woodford is Guardian Australia's ocean correspondent. The position is a non-profit journalism project funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts. He is the author of The Great Barrier Reef and joined Professor David Booth on an expedition to catch lemon damsels at One Tree Island in 2009. For more information on Woodford's work for Guardian Australia, click here
LOAD-DATE: November 5, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
428 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 4, 2014 Tuesday 3:29 PM GMT
Church of England failing to heed call to divest from fossil fuels;
Despite advice from Desmond Tutu to divest from of coal, oil and gas, the Church of England is choosing to delay a decision until late 2015, says climate activist Bill McKibben
BYLINE: Adam Vaughan
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 820 words
The Church of England (CoE) is failing to heed the advice of Desmond Tutu to pull its investments out of fossil fuels, according to Bill McKibben, one of the world's top climate activists.
The retired Anglican Archbishop of South Africa said in April that organisations should divest from coal, gas and oil companies, a call he later reiterated when he said the divestment campaign was "a moral movement to persuade fossil fuel companies away from a business model that threatens our very survival".
McKibben, a US author and co-founder of environmental group 350.org, told the Guardian that the CoE was dragging its heels when it comes to dropping fossil fuel investments from its £5.2bn fund.
The CoE has set up a group to take advice on climate change and investment, but a decision on whether or not the church should divest is not expected until next year.
"Their response so far has been to say that they'll study it until late 2015, which means they will have examined it for a period slightly longer than Jesus's public ministry. It's not exactly what Desmond Tutu had in mind.
"If there was ever a moment when we needed strong moral leadership, this is the moment."
The CoE did not respond to requests for details of when a decision might be expected.
"I have no doubt eventually they'll do the right thing, I have no doubt eventually everyone will do the right thing. The problem is we don't have eventually with which to work," added McKibben, who has become the figurehead for an international movement that has seen divestments by churches, universities, businesses, individuals and local government valued at over $50bn.
Glasgow University recently became the first university in Europe to vote to divest from fossil fuels, prompting five geology and engineering academics at the university to hit out at what they called "vacuous posturing" because the institution and Scotland still rely on fossil fuels for energy.
"That's a terrible argument, that's the worst possible argument," said McKibben of the staffers' letter. "We'll change once it's no longer necessary, then we'll be in favour of changing."
But he said the backlash had been greatest in Australia, where Australia National University (ANU) last month decided to ditch its fossil fuel investments, a move the prime minister, Tony Abbott, called a "stupid decision".
"The backlash has been the most intense in Australia... within days half the government of Australia was attacking them [ANU], and to their credit they held their ground.
"If it wasn't going to make any difference then the prime minister of Australia wouldn't be up in arms about it. He has a much stronger sense of the threat."
McKibben was also highly critical of a recent capitulation by the EU to Canada over a proposal to label oil from tar sands as highly polluting, which would have effectively banned the carbon-intensive fuel from Europe. In October, the EU abandoned the so-called fuel quality directive, just weeks before EU leaders agreed to cut carbon emissions 40% by 2030.
"That was depressing as could be. It's clearly an intellectual dishonesty. Canada puts enormous pressure, their diplomatic corps is essentially just a bunch of salesmen for tar sands. Canada and Australia have become the two biggest rogue nations on the planet.
"It makes one worry about EU resolve to actually do anything, as to whether or not these headline numbers of 40% add up to anything. You can't have your cake and eat it."
The US president, Barack Obama, had shown similar contradictions, McKibben said.
"Obama's great at it too, busy drilling for oil everywhere while talking a good game about it.
"He's better than George Bush but I've drunk more beer than my 14-year old niece. He's done a few good things, but judged against the size of the crisis it will be a largely wasted eight years."
Obama's move to force US car makers to commit to new fuel economy standards over the next decade would be the president's lasting environment legacy, the 53 year-old campaigner said.
McKibben highlighted an organised day of climate marches around the world in September, which saw a reported 400,000 people on the streets of New York, as a sign that the movement for action on climate change was reaching a critical mass.
"I think when people write the history of this whole period, they'll do worse than to pick the 21 of September as the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel industry, with 400,000 people in the streets of New York and the Rockefellers announcing they're divesting.
"The only question is how fast that end will come. On that question hinges whether we have a habitable world or not. If we can do it in 25 years, then we've got a shot, not at stopping global warming but stopping it getting entirely out of control. If we take 50 or 60 years, then forget it, the science couldn't be clearer."
McKibben was speaking in London ahead of a talk at at the London School of Economics on Tuesday.
LOAD-DATE: November 5, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
429 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 4, 2014 Tuesday 2:47 PM GMT
Beating water and land shortages in the Middle East and north Africa;
Focusing on the nexus between scarce resources is the only route to sustainable supplies of water, food and energy
BYLINE: Holger Hoff and Tom Gill in Stockholm
SECTION: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS NETWORK
LENGTH: 926 words
Water and arable land are more scarce in Middle East and North African (Mena) countries than in any other region. Growing demand, population growth, a shrinking resource base, and climate change are combining to rapidly increase pressure on these resources.
Region-wide investment and collaboration in renewable energy systems could serve to address these issues, leading to a more secure future for the region's 355 million inhabitants in terms of water, food and energy. Furthermore, regional collaboration has the potential to reduce conflict.
The nexus between water and energy is among the most important inter-dependencies in Arab countries, where socio-economic development relies on the sustainable provision of these two resources. Together, water and energy are required for irrigation and separately, energy is vital to desalination, and water is critical for energy production. While water scarcity in the region increases, food price hikes and food access become grave concerns for many.
Current solutions to water and energy problems are often too narrowly focused and have unwanted or unexpected side effects. For example, seawater desalination - which is energy intensive and increasingly widespread in the region, especially in the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is almost exclusively based on fossil fuels. This not only contributes to climate change but also impacts on countries' fossil-fuel export revenues. Desalination also requires heavy capital investment and high operation and maintenance costs, and takes a heavy toll on the marine environment.
There is an urgent need for Arab countries to cooperate and invest in research and development into alternative desalination and treatment technologies. Acquiring and localising these technologies will help to reduce costs and increase its reliability as a water source, adding value to economies as well as reducing environmental impacts.
Solar energy, with its nearly unlimited availability in the region, will be critical for powering desalination plants, as well as for meeting climate goals and the broader aim of sustainable development.
But, like any solution, it has to be adapted to the regional context. Solar panels developed for a European context may not work well in the Mena region. Sand can cover or damage solar panel surfaces, the efficiency of power generation decreases with increasing temperature, and shallow coastal zones - common in the area - cannot sustain large amounts of brine discharge from desalination plants. At the moment these challenges are addressed only in a very fragmented way, within sectors and within countries.
An integrated - or 'nexus' - approach is required for any strategy or technological solution for meeting the ambitious renewable energy targetsmany Mena countries have set, as well as solutions for food security via imports or foreign direct investment in agriculture, to which many countries in the region increasingly resort.
A nexus approach can help countries use resources more efficiently, reduce the impacts of technologies such as desalination, and create synergies between sectors. There is also great potential to reduce pressure on resources by shifting agricultural policy towards multi-functionality (such as the non-trade benefits of agriculture, such as environmental protection and food security) and by the recycling and cascading use of resources. For example wastewater from cities can be used to generate energy and be re-used in agriculture.
The Stockholm Environment Institute, Texas A&M and Chatham House are the core partners in a new initiative, The Nexus in the Arab Region, which will act as a hub for knowledge and technology exchange, and for innovating, adapting and benchmarking solutions. The initiative will demonstrate the benefits and opportunities of a nexus approach, identify entry points for bringing this thinking into policy (such as national development plans and economic incentives), and will showcase innovations, best practices and solutions. Key to the success of this initiative is growing a network of experts and practitioners and its platform for dialogue and information sharing.
This year has seen momentum building for the initiative through a series of conferences, workshops and other events, such as the nexus seminar for the Arab Region at Stockholm World Water Week. The Arab Water Forum in Cairo this December will also be key for building a broad network of partners among regional institutions.
There is hardly any other region for which a nexus approach holds such great potential to reduce pressure on the environment and save on precious resources while at the same time accelerating socio-economic development, reducing disparities across countries, contributing to cooperation and conflict resolution and ensuring the region's wealth and heritage for future generations.
Holger Hoff is an environmental scientist and senior research fellow, and Tom Gill is senior editor and writer at the Stockholm Environment Institute. Follow @SEIclimate on Twitter.
Read more stories like this :
· Why has 'microhydro' been neglected as solution to energy poverty?· After the Taliban: taking solar energy to remote parts of Afghanistan· Chile's solar market is leading the way in South America· Advertisement feature: Clean energy revolution in Uganda
Join our community of development professionals and humanitarians. Follow @GuardianGDP on Twitter.
LOAD-DATE: November 4, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
430 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 4, 2014 Tuesday 11:51 AM GMT
Six ways you can help stop climate change;
What can one person do? The IPCC has made dire warnings, but says solutions are out there. Here are some simple steps we can all take
BYLINE: Bibi van der Zee
SECTION: COMMENT IS FREE
LENGTH: 871 words
Hiding behind the sofa definitely isn't the best course of action, but it might be the first thing that comes to mind when contemplating the latest round of immense and frightening findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It's important to read carefully though. Its new report also tells us that solutions are available, even affordable - so what is one small human being to do? Here, to get you started, are a few suggestions.
1. Talk about climate change
Yes, that's right, just talk. Over the past few years we've talked less and less about this subject, according to the Climate Outreach and Information Network (Coin ), and as a result we're all underestimating the amount of support there is out there for climate change policies. "Most people think that about half the population is opposed to renewables, for example," says Adam Corner of Coin. "In fact about 70-80% are in favour. If we start having conversations about this we can really build up a bedrock of support for this subject." (The organisation 10:10 has been running its massively cheering It's Happening thread with this in mind - have a look.)
2. Take a look at your diet
Just throwing away less food and eating less meat means you can make a significant dent in your carbon footprint. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations did some sums last year and worked out that if food wastage was a country, it would be the third highest carbon emitter globally after the US and China. You don't need to give up meat completely, just reduce the amount you eat, or even just try cutting out the steaks. One calorie of steak requires 160 times more land than a calorie of potato, a study showed earlier this year, and meanwhile we are subsidising the whole meat industry to the tune of billions of pounds, as Vicki Hird of Friends of the Earth points out in her Atlas of Meat.
3. Reclaim the streets
A joyful development in global public policy in recent years has been a move away from road-building, towards handing back streets and spaces to pedestrians and cyclists. For example, Auckland - which has the highest ownership of cars per capita in the world and used to be known as the City of Cars - has been implementing a "shared street policy" to encourage pedestrians, which has had an extremely positive public response. In fact this is happening all over the place, and it comes in many forms. In the UK you can join your local Playing Out group to shut down your street for an afternoon so that the children can take over, or you can talk to the charity Sustrans, which helps people travel by foot, bike or public transport, about some amazing local traffic calming initiatives. You can also support cycle campaigns; despite a huge amount of activism on this front recently, cycling in the UK declined last year, but proper infrastructure could quickly change that. Working towards long-term infrastructure change is a positive long-term contribution, and also makes us feel better about the issue in the short-term.
4. Change to LED lightbulbs
These are the new wave of energy-saving bulbs, and they've come on a long way from the blue-tinged alien life forms they once were. You can now buy them in a spectrum of colours and they save on average about £40 a year compared with all-halogen bulbs. And this is just the start. A whole-house energy audit may ensue ... There are hundreds of useful tips at the Energy Savings Trust.
5. Get involved with a community energy project
There is something tremendously satisfying about the idea of reclaiming control of our energy from the "big six" energy companies, even if only partially. "It pays so many dividends simultaneously - carbon, environmental, economic and social," says Ed Gillespie of Futerra. Nick Dearden of the World Development Movement says we should be learning from the success of Germany's Energiewende programme, which gives "more power to communities and 'ordinary people' to control systems of renewable energy production and distribution". This community model really is working in Germany and here in the UK the Solar Schools project is a great starting point. Studies show that after raising money for solar panels for their local school the majority of people feel closer to their community, and are far more likely to get solar panels themselves.
6. Lobby your MP
Pop along to WritetoThem.com and drop your MP a line asking what they are doing and saying about climate change. You don't have to be an expert - just let them know you're out there. But if you want to go a step further, the Green party leader, Natalie Bennett, suggests asking them whether they support the energy bill revolution, for example, a campaign to step up the greening of our national housing stock. Corner says: "If MPs don't hear about these subjects from constituents, they don't know that you care about it." Telling your MP that this is an issue that you are passionate about, and are following closely, gives them motivation to be more active in Westminster.
That's six ideas, but there are so many other exciting possibilities. What are you currently doing to address climate change - and what do you think is the most important change you can make as an individual?
LOAD-DATE: November 4, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
431 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 4, 2014 Tuesday 11:42 AM GMT
Guardian Big Energy Debate closing reception - sign up now;
Join us on Wednesday 21 January 2015 for a conversation about the future of energy in the UK. Register your interest today
BYLINE: Guardian staff
SECTION: THE BIG ENERGY DEBATE
LENGTH: 273 words
In January, our year-long project exploring the UK energy crisis and how it can be solved will draw to a close. During the last few months, the Guardian Big Energy Debate has heard from policy makers, academics, consumers, voters, politicians and industry leaders to find how energy affects them. Our closing reception will offer a chance to reflect upon these conversations.
The debate will be chaired by Terry Macalister, the Guardian's energy editor and will feature a keynote from Tim Yeo, chair of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee on the work that the committee has carried out and what their future plans are. This will be followed by a response from the three main political parties, who will also lay out their plans for energy policy ahead of the next general election. The debate will also feature a structured Q&A led by the chair and conclude with questions from the audience.
The evening will include networking and drinks in the library at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.
Details:
Date: Wednesday 21 January 2015 Time: 19.00 - 21.45 Location: Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 1 Birdcage Walk, Westminster, SW1H 9JJ.
Confirmed speakers:
Terry Macalister, energy editor, the Guardian
Tim Yeo MP, chair, energy and climate change select committee
Caroline Flint MP, shadow secretary of state for energy and climate change
Join us:
This event is designed for policy makers, industry, think tank and academic representatives. It is free to attend but by application only. Please fill in the form below to register your interest.
LOAD-DATE: November 4, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
432 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 4, 2014 Tuesday 8:45 AM GMT
Six ways you can help stop climate change;
What can one person do? The IPCC has made dire warnings, but says solutions are out there. Here are some simple steps we can all take
BYLINE: Bibi van der Zee
SECTION: COMMENT IS FREE
LENGTH: 871 words
Hiding behind the sofa definitely isn't the best course of action, but it might be the first thing that comes to mind when contemplating the latest round of immense and frightening findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It's important to read carefully though. Its new report also tells us that solutions are available, even affordable - so what is one small human being to do? Here, to get you started, are a few suggestions.
1. Talk about climate change
Yes, that's right, just talk. Over the past few years we've talked less and less about this subject, according to the Climate Outreach and Information Network (Coin ), and as a result we're all underestimating the amount of support there is out there for climate change policies. "Most people think that about half the population is opposed to renewables, for example," says Adam Corner of Coin. "In fact about 70-80% are in favour. If we start having conversations about this we can really build up a bedrock of support for this subject." (The organisation 10:10 has been running its massively cheering It's Happening thread with this in mind - have a look.)
2. Take a look at your diet
Just throwing away less food and eating less meat means you can make a significant dent in your carbon footprint. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations did some sums last year and worked out that if food wastage was a country, it would be the third highest carbon emitter globally after the US and China. You don't need to give up meat completely, just reduce the amount you eat, or even just try cutting out the steaks. One calorie of steak requires 160 times more land than a calorie of potato, a study showed earlier this year, and meanwhile we are subsidising the whole meat industry to the tune of billions of pounds, as Vicki Hird of Friends of the Earth points out in her Atlas of Meat.
3. Reclaim the streets
A joyful development in global public policy in recent years has been a move away from road-building, towards handing back streets and spaces to pedestrians and cyclists. For example, Auckland - which has the highest ownership of cars per capita in the world and used to be known as the City of Cars - has been implementing a "shared street policy" to encourage pedestrians, which has had an extremely positive public response. In fact this is happening all over the place, and it comes in many forms. In the UK you can join your local Playing Out group to shut down your street for an afternoon so that the children can take over, or you can talk to the charity Sustrans, which helps people travel by foot, bike or public transport, about some amazing local traffic calming initiatives. You can also support cycle campaigns; despite a huge amount of activism on this front recently, cycling in the UK declined last year, but proper infrastructure could quickly change that. Working towards long-term infrastructure change is a positive long-term contribution, and also makes us feel better about the issue in the short-term.
4. Change to LED lightbulbs
These are the new wave of energy-saving bulbs, and they've come on a long way from the blue-tinged alien life forms they once were. You can now buy them in a spectrum of colours and they save on average about £40 a year compared with all-halogen bulbs. And this is just the start. A whole-house energy audit may ensue ... There are hundreds of useful tips at the Energy Savings Trust.
5. Get involved with a community energy project
There is something tremendously satisfying about the idea of reclaiming control of our energy from the "big six" energy companies, even if only partially. "It pays so many dividends simultaneously - carbon, environmental, economic and social," says Ed Gillespie of Futerra. Nick Dearden of the Global Development Movement says we should be learning from the success of Germany's Energiewende programme, which gives "more power to communities and 'ordinary people' to control systems of renewable energy production and distribution". This community model really is working in Germany and here in the UK the Solar Schools project is a great starting point. Studies show that after raising money for solar panels for their local school the majority of people feel closer to their community, and are far more likely to get solar panels themselves.
6. Lobby your MP
Pop along to WritetoThem.com and drop your MP a line asking what they are doing and saying about climate change. You don't have to be an expert - just let them know you're out there. But if you want to go a step further, the Green party leader, Natalie Bennett, suggests asking them whether they support the energy bill revolution, for example, a campaign to step up the greening of our national housing stock. Corner says: "If MPs don't hear about these subjects from constituents, they don't know that you care about it." Telling your MP that this is an issue that you are passionate about, and are following closely, gives them motivation to be more active in Westminster.
That's six ideas, but there are so many other exciting possibilities. What are you currently doing to address climate change - and what do you think is the most important change you can make as an individual?
LOAD-DATE: November 4, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
433 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 4, 2014 Tuesday 7:52 AM GMT
Fossil fuel ads approved by Brisbane airport despite political intent;
Activist groups hoping to attract the attention of G20 delegates had their adverts declined - but Chevron and the mining-funded Reef Facts campaign were given the green light
BYLINE: Alan Evans
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 482 words
Three advertisements have been banned from appearing in Brisbane airport because they were deemed "too political" - but it has emerged that similar material from energy giant Chevron and the Queensland government's controversial mining-funded Reef Facts campaign was approved.
In the run-up to the G20 meeting in Brisbane this month, activist groups tried to place adverts inside the terminal, but were rebuffed by Ooh Media, the airport's media buyer.
As Guardian Australia revealed on Sunday, environment and development groups led by the WWF attempted to place a billboard ad depicting a farmer calling for action on climate change, featuring the words: "Action on climate change is #onmyagenda, Dear G20 leaders please put it on yours."
The groups agreed to remove the words "Dear G20 leaders", but Ooh Media still rejected the new advert.
On Tuesday it emerged that campaign group Transparency International had had its own billboard advertisement rejected for the same reasons - it was "too political".
Reading "Dirty money not welcome here. G20, it's time to: unmaskthecorrupt.com", the billboard was designed to urge global leaders to support anti-corruption principles being discussed at the summit.
Again though, Brisbane rejected the advertisement, saying its policy did not allow billboards with a political intent.
A spokeswoman said the policy ruled out advertising, whether by political parties, groups or individuals, that was "focused on a particular policy issue that is the subject of political contention". There was no value judgment made about the message, she said.
Also on Tuesday, civil society forum C20 was told that the airport would not carry its planned lightbox advertisements.
"We can talk to leaders as an official engagement group, but it seems we can't talk to the public," C20 spokesman John Lindsay told reporters.
But earlier this year the airport hosted adverts as part of a campaign by the Queensland government - funded by the Queensland Resources Council, a peak body representing mining and energy companies.
The adverts pointed people to a government website which drew criticism for its selective use of statistics to imply that dredging, dumping and shipping were not having an adverse effect on the Great Barrier Reef.
But the campaign was not considered too political under the airport's policy.
"Our judgment is that government advertising on government programs does not constitute advertising with a political intent," a spokeswoman said.
Likewise, adverts promoting Chevron's "We Agree" campaign were not deemed too political and were allowed to be placed in the airport.
According to Business Spectator, Brisbane airport's head of corporate relations, Rachel Crowley, acknowledged that Chevron's ads had a political purpose - but did not row back on the bans on the WWF, Transparency International and C20 displays.
LOAD-DATE: November 4, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
434 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 4, 2014 Tuesday 7:13 AM GMT
Brisbane airport rejects climate change billboard as 'too political';
Environment groups sought to place ad calling for action on climate change in arrivals hall to coincide with G20 meeting
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 655 words
Brisbane airport has rejected an advertising billboard depicting a farmer calling for action on climate change on the grounds that the issue is "too political".
Environment and development groups had sought to place the billboard in the airport's arrivals hall in time for the G20 leaders' meeting in two weeks time.
Linked with a social media campaign, it originally said "Action on climate change is #onmyagenda, Dear G20 leaders please put it on yours" a reference to Australia's resistance to having climate change on the G20 agenda at all.
The groups then agreed to remove the words "Dear G20 leaders" - leaving the billboard to read simply "Action on climate change is #onmyagenda, please put it on yours".
But according to WWF chief executive Dermot O'Gorman, media buyer Ooh Media replied that the airport was still rejecting the billboard, which features South Australian farmer David Bruer, "because they consider climate change as being too political".
Another billboard, with the same message, featuring firefighter Dean McNulty, will be erected on the route leaders are likely to take to the site of the G20 meeting.
"The #onmyagenda partners were surprised by the decision to reject the billboard. The reality is climate change is a global problem affecting economies, societies and environments all around the world, we can't afford to sweep it under the carpet, we owe it to future generations to deal with it right here, right now," O'Gorman said.
Bruer, who owns a vineyard in South Australia, told Guardian Australia he was "surprised more than anything else".
"They say climate change is political. Actually it is a reality for farmers like me," Bruer said. He lost $25,000 worth of grapes in one day last year when the temperature reached 46 degrees C.
Australia has reluctantly conceded that climate change can be included in a single brief paragraph of the G20 leaders' communique after heavy lobbying by the US and European nations.
The government had resisted any discussion of climate at the Brisbane meeting on the grounds that the G20 is primarily an economic forum, but other nations argued leaders' agreements at meetings like the G20 are crucial to build momentum towards a successful international deal at the United Nations conference on climate change in Paris next year.
The final wording of the leaders' statement after the meeting is still being finalised but it is believed to simply recommit to addressing climate change through UN processes.
The outcome - and Australia's fierce resistance to a discussion of climate change - have been attacked by the leading climate economist Nicholas Stern, who has written for Guardian Australia that the latest "synthesis" report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) should be "high on the agenda" for the G20 meeting.
"The G20 is the most effective forum for the discussion of the growth story of the future, the transition to the low-carbon economy. Yet the local politics of a country of less than 25 million is being allowed to prevent essential strategic discussions of an issue that is of fundamental importance to the prosperity and wellbeing of the world's population of seven billion people," he writes.
Australia has agreed the G20 should discuss climate-related issues as part of its deliberations on energy efficiency, but this also appears to be wrapped up in a general commitment that countries consider taking action in the future on some of a long list of areas where energy efficiency improvements might be made.
Groups involved in the advertising campaign include Oxfam, Greenpeace, 350.0rg, WWF, Earth Hour, GetUp, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Australian Youth Climate Coalition and 1 Million Women.
They are encouraging people to tweet G20 leaders asking them "to include climate change as a stand-alone item on the G20 agenda, as it was on the previous eight G20 summits".
Brisbane airport was contacted for comment.
LOAD-DATE: November 4, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
435 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 4, 2014 Tuesday 7:00 AM GMT
Beating water and land shortages in the Middle East and north Africa;
Focusing on the nexus between scarce resources is the only route to sustainable supplies of water, food and energy
BYLINE: Holger Hoff and Tom Gill in Stockholm
SECTION: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS NETWORK
LENGTH: 926 words
Water and arable land are more scarce in Middle East and North African (Mena) countries than in any other region. Growing demand, population growth, a shrinking resource base, and climate change are combining to rapidly increase pressure on these resources.
Region-wide investment and collaboration in renewable energy systems could serve to address these issues, leading to a more secure future for the region's 355 million inhabitants in terms of water, food and energy. Furthermore, regional collaboration has the potential to reduce conflict.
The nexus between water and energy is among the most important inter-dependencies in Arab countries, where socio-economic development relies on the sustainable provision of these two resources. Together, water and energy are required for irrigation and separately, energy is vital to desalination, and water is critical for energy production. While water scarcity in the region increases, food price hikes and food access become grave concerns for many.
Current solutions to water and energy problems are often too narrowly focused and have unwanted or unexpected side effects. For example, seawater desalination - which is energy intensive and increasingly widespread in the region, especially in the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is almost exclusively based on fossil fuels. This not only contributes to climate change but also impacts on countries' fossil-fuel export revenues. Desalination also requires heavy capital investment and high operation and maintenance costs, and takes a heavy toll on the marine environment.
There is an urgent need for Arab countries to cooperate and invest in research and development into alternative desalination and treatment technologies. Acquiring and localising these technologies will help to reduce costs and increase its reliability as a water source, adding value to economies as well as reducing environmental impacts.
Solar energy, with its nearly unlimited availability in the region, will be critical for powering desalination plants, as well as for meeting climate goals and the broader aim of sustainable development.
But, like any solution, it has to be adapted to the regional context. Solar panels developed for a European context may not work well in the Mena region. Sand can cover or damage solar panel surfaces, the efficiency of power generation decreases with increasing temperature, and shallow coastal zones - common in the area - cannot sustain large amounts of brine discharge from desalination plants. At the moment these challenges are addressed only in a very fragmented way, within sectors and within countries.
An integrated - or 'nexus' - approach is required for any strategy or technological solution for meeting the ambitious renewable energy targetsmany Mena countries have set, as well as solutions for food security via imports or foreign direct investment in agriculture, to which many countries in the region increasingly resort.
A nexus approach can help countries use resources more efficiently, reduce the impacts of technologies such as desalination, and create synergies between sectors. There is also great potential to reduce pressure on resources by shifting agricultural policy towards multi-functionality (such as the non-trade benefits of agriculture, such as environmental protection and food security) and by the recycling and cascading use of resources. For example wastewater from cities can be used to generate energy and be re-used in agriculture.
The Stockholm Environment Institute, Texas A&M and Chatham House are the core partners in a new initiative, The Nexus in the Arab Region, which will act as a hub for knowledge and technology exchange, and for innovating, adapting and benchmarking solutions. The initiative will demonstrate the benefits and opportunities of a nexus approach, identify entry points for bringing this thinking into policy (such as national development plans and economic incentives), and will showcase innovations, best practices and solutions. Key to the success of this initiative is growing a network of experts and practitioners and its platform for dialogue and information sharing.
This year has seen momentum building for the initiative through a series of conferences, workshops and other events, such as the nexus seminar for the Arab Region at Stockholm World Water Week. The Arab Water Forum in Cairo this December will also be key for building a broad network of partners among regional institutions.
There is hardly any other region for which a nexus approach holds such great potential to reduce pressure on the environment and save on precious resources while at the same time accelerating socio-economic development, reducing disparities across countries, contributing to cooperation and conflict resolution and ensuring the region's wealth and heritage for future generations.
Holger Hoff is an environmental scientist and senior research fellow, and Tom Gill is senior editor and writer at the Stockholm Environment Institute. Follow @SEIclimate on Twitter.
Read more stories like this :
· Why has 'microhydro' been neglected as solution to energy poverty?· After the Taliban: taking solar energy to remote parts of Afghanistan· Chile's solar market is leading the way in South America· Advertisement feature: Clean energy revolution in Uganda
Join our community of development professionals and humanitarians. Follow @GuardianGDP on Twitter.
LOAD-DATE: November 4, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
436 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 4, 2014 Tuesday 6:03 AM GMT
Carbon tax demise leading to large rise in emissions, says academic;
Removal of carbon price has led to a surge in the use of brown coal generators in Australian electricity sector, analysis shows
BYLINE: Oliver Milman
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 612 words
Emissions from Australia's electricity sector have risen significantly since the repeal of the carbon price, with a record rise in emissions predicted this financial year.
An analysis of the National Electricity Market (NEM) by Mike Sandiford, a University of Melbourne energy academic, has shown their emissions will rise about 9% in 2014-15 compared with 2013-14 - the equivalent of 14m extra tonnes of carbon dioxide. The figure could be as high as 10%, according Sandiford.
The NEM covers about 80% of Australia's electricity consumption.
"To put it in historical context, this recent increase in emissions is currently tracking at about 250% higher than the previous largest recorded increase," Sandiford wrote in the the Conversation. "That was back in 2003-04 when emissions increased by a touch over 5m tonnes for the year."
Sandiford said the increase was clearly linked to the Coalition's repeal of the carbon pricing mechanism, which was scrapped in July.
"The reason is straightforward," he said. "During the years of carbon pricing, hydro was being dispatched at unsustainable levels. Since repeal the reduction in hydro output has been substantially picked up by brown coal generators in Victoria."
Separate figures released by consultancy firm Pitt&Sherry show that annual NEM emissions were 1.3% higher in the month to September 2014 compared with the year to June 2014, the month before carbon pricing was removed.
In a briefing note, Pitt&Sherry said black coal generation has increased 0.5% in this period, with brown coal, the most carbon-intensive type of coal, rising 2.2%.
The increase in emissions wasn't entirely down to the removal of the carbon price, the note stated, with falling gas generation and "considerably less" wind generation causing coal to take up the slack.
But it suggested that consumer behavioural changes caused by pricing carbon may be unwinding.
"The data suggests that households have been changing their attitudes to electricity
consumption, and hence to their consumption behaviour, much as they changed their attitudes and behaviour to water consumption during the drought of a few years ago," the briefing stated. "We may now be seeing signs that this attitudinal effect has run its course."
Last week, the Coalition gained the Senate votes for its alternative climate change policy, which will provide $2.55bn in voluntary grants to businesses that wish to reduce emissions. Auctions for the emissions reduction schemes will start early next year.
The government has hailed figures showing a sharp fall in electricity prices as justification for scrapping the carbon pricing, insisting it will reach its target of a 5% emissions cut by 2020, based on 2000 levels.
However, Christine Milne, the leader of the Greens, said she wasn't surprised that emissions have risen for four months in a row since the carbon price was dismantled.
"By putting a price on carbon, we had seen the emissions from electricity generation come down," she said. "They were down by at least 4%. It was a really good news story.
"Now, with the abolition of emissions trading, they are going up and we're going to see an increased trend of more emissions from black and brown coal, right around the country, to the detriment of the climate."
A major report released by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Sunday said fossil fuels should virtually be phased out by 2100 if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change.
However, Tony Abbott said on Tuesday that coal will be the "foundation of our prosperity" for the foreseeable future.
"Coal is the foundation of the way we live because you can't have a modern lifestyle without energy," he said.
LOAD-DATE: November 4, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
437 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 4, 2014 Tuesday 5:26 AM GMT
G20 energy efficiency action plan appears to require little or no action;
Document obtained by Guardian Australia shows G20 leaders are likely to agree only to 'consider' making commitments at a later dateRead the full text of the plan
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 701 words
The G20's "energy efficiency action plan" appears not to require G20 leaders to commit to any actual action, but instead asks them to "consider" making promises next year to reduce the energy used by smart phones and computers and to develop tougher standards for emissions from cars.
Despite the very vague nature of the 13-page document, obtained by Guardian Australia, an annex suggests China, Russia, Brazil and South Africa are not yet fully committed to taking part in any of the areas of the G20's energy efficiency work.
Australia has been resisting substantive discussions about climate change at the leaders' meeting in Brisbane in two weeks, arguing that the G20 is primarily an economic forum, but Australia's prime minister, Tony Abbott, has said it will be discussed in the G20's consideration of the energy efficiency plan.
But that plan appears to require leaders to commit to very little.
It proposes two new areas for G20 work - a process led by the United States to "consider whether the G20 members could commit, in 2015, to strengthen domestic standards related to clean fuels, vehicle emissions and vehicle fuel efficiency".
Another group, led by the UK, will look at the energy efficiency of smart phones, computers, televisions, printers and other devices and "consider whether G20 members could commit, in 2015, to a global reduction in the standby mode energy consumption of networked devices by 50% by 2025".
Australia and the United States lead an existing group looking at the energy efficiency of buildings and will "report to the G20 in 2015 on progress". A progress report in 2015 is also all that is promised from groups looking at the energy efficiency of industry and electricity generation.
In the annex, titled "Participation in priority areas of energy efficiency work", Russia is listed as "tentatively" taking part only in the work on vehicle emission standards, and China as a "tentative" participant in the work on vehicles, computers and other devices and a long term plan to encourage finance for energy efficiency. South Africa is a tentative participant only in the work on buildings, industrial emissions and electricity generation. Australia is listed as participating in all the processes except industrial emissions.
The UK is listed as participating in only three of the "priority areas" - buildings, financing and electronic devices, where it is leading the efforts. The US is taking part in the work on buildings and vehicle emissions - taking the lead on both - and also on electronic devices.
The executive summary says the document is "a practical plan to strengthen voluntary energy efficiency collaboration in a flexible way" and countries have "each chosen to participate in various areas of work based on their national priorities and key actions".
The chief executive of WWF-Australia, Dermot O'Gorman, said in its current form the "so-called Energy Efficiency Action Plan is little more than a commitment to keep talking".
"What we really need from G20 leaders in Brisbane is a commitment to act. Anything less is a missed opportunity. Energy efficiency could save the global economy trillions of dollars over the coming decade, so there's no excuse for further delay," he said.
The final wording of the leaders' statement after the meeting is still being finalised but it is believed it could contain a vague recommitment to address climate change through UN processes.
The energy efficiency action plan does not mention the words "climate change".
This outcome - and Australia's resistance to discussing climate at the meeting - have been attacked by the leading climate economist Lord Nicholas Stern, who wrote for Guardian Australia that the latest "synthesis" report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) should be "high on the agenda" for the G20.
"The G20 is the most effective forum for the discussion of the growth story of the future, the transition to the low-carbon economy. Yet the local politics of a country of less than 25 million is being allowed to prevent essential strategic discussions of an issue that is of fundamental importance to the prosperity and well-being of the world's population of 7 billion people," he wrote.
LOAD-DATE: November 4, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
438 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Taking Note)
November 4, 2014 Tuesday
As the Climate Changes, Voters Go for Coal
BYLINE: DAVID FIRESTONE
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 328 words
HIGHLIGHT: Two states with particularly long histories of poverty and hunger voted for Senate candidates who have vowed to fight limits on coal burning with everything they have.
It was just two days ago that a United Nations panel on climate change issued a frightening warning about the dangers of global warming.
If greenhouse gas emissions continue, "they could stall or even reverse generations of progress against poverty and hunger," as the New York Times article explained, threatening food shortages, widespread flooding, and mass extinction of animal and plant species.
But tonight, two of the states with particularly long histories of poverty and hunger ignored that warning and voted for Senate candidates who have vowed to fight limits on coal burning with everything they have. Kentucky re-elected Senator Mitch McConnell, who has a strong chance of achieving his goal of becoming majority leader, and West Virginia elected Representative Shelley Moore Capito, a founder of the Congressional Coal Caucus.Ms. Capito has at various times denied that the climate is changing, and has demanded that President Obama stop trying to win a global reduction in carbon emissions. Mr. McConnell has vowed to stand in the way of the president's plans to limit emissions from coal plants. (Mr. McConnell's Democratic opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes, Grimes has also been critical of coal regulation, but at least has had the decency to acknowledge the reality of climate change.)
The self-interest of voters in coal country was evident tonight, providing the strongest support for the two Republicans. Rand Paul, the other senator from Kentucky, said the results send a clear message: "Mr. President, the war on Kentucky coal must end." Senator Joe Manchin, the Democrat who gave up the seat that Ms. Capito won, said his party lost those two races solely because of the administration's coal policy.
It's unfortunate that the voters in those two states can't see the larger picture. But it's worse that the leaders they support have encouraged this blindness, refusing to acknowledge the looming danger to the environment as they accumulate power.
LOAD-DATE: November 4, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
439 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 3, 2014 Monday 8:00 PM GMT
India air pollution 'cutting crop yields by almost half';
Agriculture hit by both urban and rural pollution as wheat and rice yield decrease significantly, study finds
BYLINE: Azeen Ghorayshi
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 605 words
Air pollution in India has become so severe that yields of crops are being cut by almost half, scientists have found.
Researchers analysed yields for wheat and rice alongside pollution data, and concluded significant decreases in yield could be attributed to two air pollutants, black carbon and ground level ozone. The finding has implications for global food security as India is a major rice exporter.
Black carbon is mostly caused by rural cookstoves , and ozone forms as a result of motor vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, and chemical solvents reacting in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. Both are "short-lived climate pollutants" that exist locally in the atmosphere for weeks to months, with ozone damaging plants' leaves and black carbon reducing the amount of sunlight they receive.
The study looked at both the effects of climate change and the two pollutants on crop yields.
"While temperature's gone up in the last three decades, the levels of smog and pollution have changed much more dramatically," says Jennifer Burney, an environmental scientist at University of California, San Diego, and co-author of the paper, published in the journal PNAS. "But this was the first time anyone looked at historical data to show that these pollutants are having tremendous impacts on crops."
Comparing crop yields in 2010 to what they would be expected to be if temperature, rainfall and pollution remained at their 1980 levels, the researchers showed that crop yields for wheat were on average 36%lower than they otherwise would have been, while rice production decreased by up to 20%. In some higher population states, wheat yields were as much as 50% lower.
Using modelling to account for the effects of temperature increase and precipitation changes in that time, they were able to show that 90% of this loss is attributable to the impact of the two pollutants.
The results are specific to India's seasonal patterns, the crops, and its high pollution levels, but may extend to other places with similar problems, such as China. Chinese scientists warned in February that severe air pollution is slowing photosynthesis in plants, with effects "somewhat similar to a nuclear winter".
Previous studies had used experimental data looking at the impacts of ozone on plants to extrapolate potential losses, but this is the first ever study to use actual historical agricultural and emissions data to account for lower crop yields.
"Overall I think it's a great paper," says Stanford agricultural ecologist David Lobell. "I think in both India and China there is growing recognition of the toll that poor air quality has on agriculture. This study will certainly add to that recognition."
Lobell and Burney both point out that because black carbon and ozone are short-lived pollutants, they present a clear opportunity for tackling climate change. While long-lived greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide can persist in the atmosphere for decades to centuries, addressing sources of the short-lived pollutants will have more immediately perceptible effects.
Measures such as improved cookstove technology for rural areas, or cleaner coal consumption and diesel filters on trucks in urban ones, could go a long way to improving the impacts on agricultural yields.
"Our thought is that these are more politically tractable points of entry for making meaningful change in climate," says Burney. "There's a really local benefit for taking on some sort of costly action."
Burney also points out that because of India's key role in exporting rice, such efforts could play a critical role in helping global food security.
LOAD-DATE: November 3, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
440 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 3, 2014 Monday 6:19 PM GMT
Six ways you can help stop climate change;
What can one person do? The IPCC has made dire warnings, but says solutions are out there. Here are some simple steps we can all take
BYLINE: Bibi van der Zee
SECTION: COMMENT IS FREE
LENGTH: 869 words
Hiding behind the sofa definitely isn't the best course of action, but it might be the first thing that comes to mind when contemplating the latest round of immense and frightening findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It's important to read carefully though. Its new report also tells us that solutions are available, even affordable - so what is one small human being to do? Here, to get you started, are a few suggestions.
1. Talk about climate change
Yes, that's right, just talk. Over the past few years we've talked less and less about this subject, according to the Climate Outreach and Information Network (Coin ), and as a result we're all underestimating the amount of support there is out there for climate change policies. "Most people think that about half the population is opposed to renewables, for example," says Adam Corner of Coin. "In fact about 70-80% are in favour. If we start having conversations about this we can really build up a bedrock of support for this subject." (The organisation 10:10 has been running its massively cheering It's Happening thread with this in mind - have a look.)
2. Take a look at your diet
Just throwing away less food and eating less meat means you can make a significant dent in your carbon footprint. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations did some sums last year and worked out that if food wastage was a country, it would be the third highest carbon emitter globally after the US and China. You don't need to give up meat completely, just reduce the amount you eat, or even just try cutting out the steaks. One calorie of steak requires 160 times more land than a calorie of potato, a study showed earlier this year, and meanwhile we are subsidising the whole meat industry to the tune of billions of pounds, as Vicki Hird of Friends of the Earth points out in her Atlas of Meat.
3. Reclaim the streets
A joyful development in global public policy in recent years has been a move away from road-building, towards handing back streets and spaces to pedestrians and cyclists. For example, Auckland - which has the highest ownership of cars per capita in the world and used to be known as the City of Cars - has been implementing a "shared street policy" to encourage pedestrians, which has had an extremely positive public response. In fact this is happening all over the place, and it comes in many forms. In the UK you can join your local Playing Out group to shut down your street for an afternoon so that the children can take over, or you can talk to the charity Sustrans, which helps people travel by foot, bike or public transport, about some amazing local traffic calming initiatives. You can also support cycle campaigns; despite a huge amount of activism on this front recently, cycling in the UK declined last year, but proper infrastructure could quickly change that. Working towards long-term infrastructure change is a positive long-term contribution, and also makes us feel better about the issue in the short-term.
4. Change to LED lightbulbs
These are the new wave of energy-saving bulbs, and they've come on a long way from the blue-tinged alien life forms they once were. You can now buy them in a spectrum of colours and they save on average about £40 a year compared with all-halogen bulbs. And this is just the start. A whole-house energy audit may ensue ... There are hundreds of useful tips at the Energy Savings Trust.
5. Get involved with a community energy project
There is something tremendously satisfying about the idea of reclaiming control of our energy from the "big six" energy companies, even if only partially. "It pays so many dividends simultaneously - carbon, environmental, economic and social," says Ed Gillespie of Futerra. Nick Dearden of Global Justice says we should be learning from the success of Germany's Energiewende programme, which gives "more power to communities and 'ordinary people' to control systems of renewable energy production and distribution". This community model really is working in Germany and here in the UK the Solar Schools project is a great starting point. Studies show that after raising money for solar panels for their local school the majority of people feel closer to their community, and are far more likely to get solar panels themselves.
6. Lobby your MP
Pop along to WritetoThem.com and drop your MP a line asking what they are doing and saying about climate change. You don't have to be an expert - just let them know you're out there. But if you want to go a step further, the Green party leader, Natalie Bennett, suggests asking them whether they support the energy bill revolution, for example, a campaign to step up the greening of our national housing stock. Corner says: "If MPs don't hear about these subjects from constituents, they don't know that you care about it." Telling your MP that this is an issue that you are passionate about, and are following closely, gives them motivation to be more active in Westminster.
That's six ideas, but there are so many other exciting possibilities. What are you currently doing to address climate change - and what do you think is the most important change you can make as an individual?
LOAD-DATE: November 3, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
441 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 3, 2014 Monday 3:19 AM GMT
Denis Napthine: Victoria must continue to rely on brown coal;
Premier rules out any shutdown of state's brown coal power generators as critics accuse him of being 'divorced from the reality of climate science'
BYLINE: Oliver Milman
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 701 words
Victorian premier Denis Napthine has ruled out any shutdown of the state's highly-polluting brown coal power generators as he set out his election pitch to voters.
A landmark report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released on Sunday, warned that climate change is set to inflict "severe, widespread and irreversible impacts" on the world's population unless greenhouse gases are drastically cut.
In order to avoid dangerous levels of warming, the IPCC said fossil fuel use that doesn't capture emissions should be phased out by the end of the century, while renewable energy such as solar and wind must make up 80% of production by 2050.
But Napthine said Victoria must continue to rely upon brown coal, which is far more carbon-intensive than other types of coal, for its power. Around 430bn tonnes of brown coal - a large portion of the world's total - is located in Victoria, mostly in the Latrobe Valley region.
Napthine said that brown coal "provides us cheap, affordable energy for Victorian families and Victorian businesses. It's vital for the cost of living for families, vital for our competitive industries".
The Victorian premier said the Coalition government was "strongly supportive" of renewable energy opportunities.
"We've been strongly supportive of the 20% renewable energy target at a federal level and we've argued that very, very strongly," he said.
"We've offered direct financial support for a range of renewable energy sources whether it be large-scale solar, whether it be geothermal, whether it be wave power or wind power."
Napthine formally triggered Victoria's election period on Monday by issuing the writs to the state's governor. The premier said the election would be based around trust, promising an extra 200,000 jobs and 850,000 training places and calling on voters to remember the "waste and mismanagement" of the previous Labor government. The Coalition is currently behind in published polls.
Napthine's sentiments were echoed by Campbell Newman, the Queensland premier, who said that an immediate halt to coal use would condemn people in China and India to poverty.
Meanwhile, Greg Hunt, the federal environment minister, said on Monday: "I think any of us who are trying to predict what happens, you know, almost a century away in terms of energy use might be getting a little bit ahead of ourselves.
"What does matter is that we take practical progressive steps to be more efficient, to reduce emissions because you can clean up air quality if you're reducing particulate pollution which is often associated with the sources of CO2 and methane because they're related product."
Mark Wakeham, chief executive of Environment Victoria, said Napthine's view of coal was "divorced from the reality of climate science".
"When it comes to climate science, Denis Napthine and Tony Abbott are two peas in a pod," he told Guardian Australia. "This Victorian government have almost universally favoured fossil fuel generation over renewables."
Wakeham said the Coalition had shelved any plan to phase out Victoria's three big brown coal generators - Hazelwood, Loy Yang and Yallourn - and placed restrictions on new wind farms and attempted to reverse any progress on energy efficiency.
"This is disappointing because in opposition the Coalition supported an emissions trading scheme, supported having an emissions reduction target and supported solar feed-in tariffs," he said.
"They've now abolished everything, they've removed every plank there was in place on climate change. We need genuine support for renewables and to decarbonise the economy."
The Coalition at both federal and Victorian levels have highlighted the role of new technology in either capturing and burying carbon emitted by brown coal generators, by up to 50% in some cases.
But professor Peter Christoff of the University of Melbourne said this approach was problematic.
"We've heard about new technology and carbon capture for more than a decade and nothing's happened," he told Guardian Australia.
"It's too expensive and there are lots of cheaper and cleaner options out there. Brown coal is an energy intensive, high-emissions fuel and just isn't viable as an energy source in the future."
LOAD-DATE: November 3, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
442 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 3, 2014 Monday 3:05 AM GMT
Coal emission reduction technology still five years off, says CSIRO;
Technology cited by Greg Hunt as way to reduce carbon emissions is still 'immature and unproven,' science body says
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 854 words
CSIRO technology to clean up power stations cited by Greg Hunt as one of the two big things the world can do to immediately reduce greenhouse emissions is at least five years away and "still ... relatively immature and unproven", the CSIRO itself says.
Asked about the findings of the latest synthesis report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which called for immediate and rapid emission reductions and the phasing out of coal-fired power, the environment minister said: "Well, what we have to focus on is reducing emissions and the best thing we can do is to actually clean up existing power stations.
"What ... we are proposing right now is to work with power stations, and we have the research of CSIRO which is talking about 30-50% reduction in emissions from brown coal power stations through their research on direct injection combustion engines," Hunt told ABC radio.
The CSIRO recently provided information to Guardian Australia about the readiness of various technologies to reduce emissions for coal-fired power. It said: "Direct injection coal engines (Dice) has been subject to development for the past century. However, it is still a relatively immature and unproven technology ... [it is] now close to the demonstration phase as an electricity generation application."
The CSIRO said the technology was "more economically attractive" than coal gasification - another technology it is studying - and "not too far off the pace of costs of conventional plants".
The technology involves changing brown coal into a type of coal that burns more cleanly in a new kind of diesel engine that can be fitted to coal-fired power plants.
Ignite Energy received $20m from the federal government in May to build a demonstration plant for the catalytic hydrothermal reactor, which produces synthetic crude oil as a by-product. The company's chief executive, Len Humphreys, said the demonstration plant would be in operation by the end of 2016.
Power stations would then need to buy the new Dice engines, which are also still being developed.
Dr Louis Wibberley, principal technologist for energy technology at the CSIRO, told Guardian Australia the Dice technology could take five years to bring to market - two more years for testing and then time for refinement and production decisions.
But he said the technology was enormously promising. For a cost of about $20 a tonne of carbon dioxide abatement, it could reduce emissions from brown coal power stations by 50% and allow coal-fired power to "underpin" a much higher use of renewable energy.
In 2010, when the Direct Action policy was first released, Hunt said it could pay a higher price for big-emitting brown coal-fired power stations to tender to the emissions reduction fund (ERF) for their gradual replacement with cleaner gas. He said the tender could also include a subsidy to make sure this move did not push up consumer power prices.
This appears no longer to be part of the policy, and the government is banking on the Dice technology to reduce emissions from coal-fired power generators.
The government has not pre-empted the price it will pay those bidding in to its $2.5bn emissions reduction fund, but to achieve the minimum 5% emission reduction it will need to find greenhouse abatement at $10 a tonne or less - half the CSIRO's estimated cost for Dice. But the ERF does allow for higher payments than the auction price under some circumstances.
John White, the chairman of Dicenet - an organisation bringing together companies involved with Dice technology - said the fact that the technology would not be commercially available for five years meant coal power stations were unlikely to be able to bid into the first $2.5bn phase of the coalition's direct action policy, which covers the next five years, for money to help pay for its installation.
White said there was "no other technology that can halve the emissions from brown coal at such a low cost."
But associate professor Frank Jotzo from the Australian National University said it didn't make sense to try to halve emissions from brown coal.
"If we need a transition fuel we can use gas, and in the medium term half the emissions from brown coal is still too much. Without a policy-driven push to explcicitly promote the continued use of coal, the logical movement is to renewables," he said.
And the executive director of The Climate Institute John Connor said it did not make sense for Australia to talk about halving emissions from brown coal - which would bring them into line with black coal - when the IPCC was talking about phasing out fossil fuel power unless it included full carbon capture and storage.
Hunt nominated preservation of "the great rainforests of the world" as the other "big thing' countries could do to reduce emissions.
The IPCC report said said renewables needed to make up 80% of the world's energy by 2050.
Hunt described Australia's target of cutting emissions by 5% by 2020 as "one of the world's leading reductions". The independent Climate Change Authority found it should be trebled if Australia was to shoulder a fair share of global emissions reductions.
LOAD-DATE: November 3, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
443 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 3, 2014 Monday
Late Edition - Final
U.N. Panel Issues Its Starkest Warning Yet on Global Warming
BYLINE: By JUSTIN GILLIS
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 8
LENGTH: 1187 words
COPENHAGEN -- The gathering risks of climate change are so profound that they could stall or even reverse generations of progress against poverty and hunger if greenhouse emissions continue at a runaway pace, according to a major new United Nations report.
Despite growing efforts in many countries to tackle the problem, the global situation is becoming more acute as developing countries join the West in burning huge amounts of fossil fuels, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said here on Sunday.
Failure to reduce emissions, the group of scientists and other experts found, could threaten society with food shortages, refugee crises, the flooding of major cities and entire island nations, mass extinction of plants and animals, and a climate so drastically altered it might become dangerous for people to work or play outside during the hottest times of the year.
''Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems,'' the report found.
In the starkest language it has ever used, the expert panel made clear how far society remains from having any serious policy to limit global warming.
Doing so would require leaving the vast majority of the world's reserves of fossil fuels in the ground or, alternatively, developing methods to capture and bury the emissions resulting from their use, the group said.
If governments are to meet their own stated goal of limiting the warming of the planet to no more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or 2 degrees Celsius, above the preindustrial level, they must restrict emissions from additional fossil-fuel burning to about 1 trillion tons of carbon dioxide, the panel said. At current growth rates, that budget is likely to be exhausted in something like 30 years, possibly less.
Yet energy companies have booked coal and petroleum reserves equal to several times that amount, and they are spending some $600 billion a year to find more. Utilities and oil companies continue to build coal-fired power plants and refineries, and governments are spending another $600 billion or so directly subsidizing the consumption of fossil fuels.
By contrast, the report found, less than $400 billion a year is being spent around the world to reduce emissions or otherwise cope with climate change. That is a small fraction of the revenue spent on fossil fuels -- it is less, for example, than the revenue of a single American oil company, ExxonMobil.
The new report comes just a month before international delegates convene in Lima, Peru, to devise a new global agreement to limit emissions, and it makes clear the urgency of their task.
Appearing Sunday morning at a news conference in Copenhagen to unveil the report, the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, appealed for strong action in Lima.
''Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in their message,'' Mr. Ban said. ''Leaders must act. Time is not on our side.''
Yet there has been no sign that national leaders are willing to discuss allocating the trillion-ton emissions budget among countries, an approach that would confront the problem head-on, but also raise deep questions of fairness. To the contrary, they are moving toward a relatively weak agreement that would essentially let each country decide for itself how much effort to put into limiting global warming, and even that document would not take effect until 2020.
''If they choose not to talk about the carbon budget, they're choosing not to address the problem of climate change,'' said Myles R. Allen, a climate scientist at Oxford University in Britain who helped write the new report. ''They might as well not bother to turn up for these meetings.''
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a scientific body appointed by the world's governments to advise them on the causes and effects of global warming, and potential solutions. The group, along with Al Gore, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for its efforts to call attention to the climate crisis.
The new report is a 175-page synopsis of a much longer series of reports that the panel has issued over the past year. It is the final step in a five-year effort by the body to analyze a vast archive of published climate research.
It is the fifth such report from the group since 1990, each finding greater certainty that the climate is warming and that human activities are the primary cause.
''Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, and in global mean sea-level rise; and it is extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,'' the report said.
A core finding of the new report is that climate change is no longer a distant threat, but is being felt all over the world. ''It's here and now,'' Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chairman of the panel, said in an interview. ''It's not something in the future.''
The group cited mass die-offs of forests, such as those killed by heat-loving beetles in the American West; the melting of land ice virtually everywhere in the world; an accelerating rise of the seas that is leading to increased coastal flooding; and heat waves that have devastated crops and killed tens of thousands of people.
The report contained the group's most explicit warning yet about the food supply, saying that climate change had already become a small drag on overall global production, and could become a far larger one if emissions continued unchecked.
A related finding is that climate change poses serious risks to basic human progress, in areas such as alleviating poverty. Under the worst-case scenarios, factors like high food prices and intensified weather disasters would most likely leave poor people worse off. In fact, the report said, that has already happened to a degree.
In Washington, the Obama administration welcomed the report, with the president's science adviser, John P. Holdren, calling it ''yet another wake-up call to the global community that we must act together swiftly and aggressively in order to stem climate change and avoid its worst impacts.''
The administration is pushing for new limits on emissions from American power plants, but faces stiff resistance in Congress and some states.
Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist at Princeton University and a principal author of the new report, said that a continuation of the political paralysis on emissions would leave society depending largely on luck.
If the level of greenhouse gases were to continue rising at a rapid pace over the coming decades, severe effects would be avoided only if the climate turned out to be far less sensitive to those gases than most scientists think likely, he said.
''We've seen many governments delay and delay and delay on implementing comprehensive emissions cuts,'' Dr. Oppenheimer said. ''So the need for a lot of luck looms larger and larger. Personally, I think it's a slim reed to lean on for the fate of the planet.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/europe/global-warming-un-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change.html
LOAD-DATE: November 3, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
444 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 2, 2014 Sunday 1:23 PM GMT
IPCC: rapid carbon emission cuts vital to stop severe impact of climate change;
Most important assessment of global warming yet warns carbon emissions must be cut sharply and soon, but UN's IPCC says solutions are available and affordable
BYLINE: Damian Carrington in Copenhagen
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1373 words
Climate change is set to inflict "severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts" on people and the natural world unless carbon emissions are cut sharply and rapidly, according to the most important assessment of global warming yet published.
The stark report states that climate change has already increased the risk of severe heatwaves and other extreme weather and warns of worse to come, including food shortages and violent conflicts. But it also found that ways to avoid dangerous global warming are both available and affordable.
"We have the means to limit climate change," said Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). "The solutions are many and allow for continued economic and human development. All we need is the will to change."
The report, which the IPPC is releasing in Copenhagen on Sunday , is the work of thousands of scientists and was agreed after negotiations by all the world's governments. It is the first IPCC report since 2007 to bring together all aspects of tackling climate change and for the first time states: that it is economically affordable; that carbon emissions will ultimately have to fall to zero; and that global poverty can only be reduced by halting global warming. The report also makes clear that carbon emissions, mainly from burning coal, oil and gas, are currently rising to record levels, not falling.
The report comes at a critical time for international action on climate change, with the deadline for a global deal just over a year away. In September, 120 national leaders met at the UN in New York to address climate change, while hundreds of thousands of marchers around the world demanded action.
Lord Nicholas Stern, a professor at the London School of Economics and the author of an influential earlier study, said the new IPCC report was the " most important assessment of climate change ever prepared " and that it made plain that "further delays in tackling climate change would be dangerous and profoundly irrational".
"The reality of climate change is undeniable, and cannot be simply wished away by politicians who lack the courage to confront the scientific evidence," he said, adding that the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people were at risk.
Bill McKibben, a high-profile climate campaigner with 350.org, said: "For scientists, conservative by nature, to use 'serious, pervasive, and irreversible' to describe the effects of climate falls just short of announcing that climate change will produce a zombie apocalypse plus random beheadings plus Ebola." Breaking the power of the fossil fuel industry would not be easy, McKibben said. "But, thanks to the IPCC, no one will ever be able to say they weren't warned."
The new overarching IPCC report builds on previous reports on the science, impacts and solutions for climate change. It concludes that global warming is "unequivocal", that humanity's role in causing it is "clear" and that many effects will last for hundreds to thousands of years even if the planet's rising temperature is halted.
In terms of impacts, such as heatwaves and extreme rain storms causing floods, the report concludes that the effects are already being felt: "In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans."
Droughts, coastal storm surges from the rising oceans and wildlife extinctions on land and in the seas will all worsen unless emissions are cut, the report states. This will have knock-on effects, according to the IPCC: "Climate change is projected to undermine food security." The report also found the risk of wars could increase: "Climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts by amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks."
Two-thirds of all the emissions permissible if dangerous climate change is to be avoided have already been pumped into the atmosphere, the IPPC found. The lowest cost route to stopping dangerous warming would be for emissions to peak by 2020 - an extremely challenging goal - and then fall to zero later this century.
The report calculates that to prevent dangerous climate change, investment in low-carbon electricity and energy efficiency will have to rise by several hundred billion dollars a year before 2030. But it also found that delaying significant emissions cuts to 2030 puts up the cost of reducing carbon dioxide by almost 50%, partly because dirty power stations would have to be closed early. "If you wait, you also have to do more difficult and expensive things," said Jim Skea, a professor at Imperial College London and an IPCC working group vice chair.
Tackling climate change need only trim economic growth rates by a tiny fraction, the IPCC states, and may actually improve growth by providing other benefits, such as cutting health-damaging air pollution.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) - the nascent technology which aims to bury CO2 underground - is deemed extremely important by the IPPC. It estimates that the cost of the big emissions cuts required would more than double without CCS.
The focus on CCS is not because the technology has advanced a great deal in recent years, said Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a professor at the Université Catholique de Louvain in Belgium and vice-chair of the IPCC, but because emissions have continued to increase so quickly. "We have emitted so much more, so we have to clean up more later", he said.
Linking CCS to the burning of wood and other plant fuels would reduce atmospheric CO2 levels because the carbon they contain is sucked from the air as they grow. But van Ypersele said the IPCC report also states "very honestly and fairly" that there are risks to this approach, such as conflicts with food security.
In contrast to the importance the IPCC gives to CCS, abandoning nuclear power or deploying only limited wind or solar power increases the cost of emission cuts by just 6-7%. The report also states that behavioural changes, such as dietary changes that could involve eating less meat, can have a role in cutting emissions.
As part of setting out how the world's nations can cut emissions effectively, the IPCC report gives prominence to ethical considerations. "[Carbon emission cuts] and adaptation raise issues of equity, justice, and fairness," says the report. "The evidence suggests that outcomes seen as equitable can lead to more effective [international] cooperation."
These issues are central to the global climate change negotiations and their inclusion in the report was welcomed by campaigners, as was the statement that adapting countries and coastlines to cope with global warming cannot by itself avert serious impacts.
"Rich governments must stop making empty promises and come up with the cash so the poorest do not have to foot the bill for the lifestyles of the wealthy," said Harjeet Singh, from ActionAid.
The statement that carbon emissions must fall to zero was "gamechanging", according to Kaisa Kosonen, from Greenpeace. "We can still limit warming to 2C, or even 1.5C or less even, [but] we need to phase out emissions," she said. Unlike CCS, which is yet to be proven commercially, she said renewable energy was falling rapidly in cost.
Sam Smith, from WWF, said: "The big change in this report is that it shows fighting climate change is not going to cripple economies and that it is essential to bringing people out of poverty. What is needed now is concerted political action." The rapid response of politicians to the recent global financial crisis showed, according to Smith, that "they could act quickly and at scale if they are sufficiently motivated".
Campaigners played down the moves made by some countries with large fossil fuel reserves to weaken the language of the draft IPCC report written by scientists and seen by the Guardian, saying the final report was conservative but strong.
However, the statement that "climate change is expected to lead to increases in ill-health in many regions, including greater likelihood of death" was deleted in the final report, along with criticism that politicians sometimes "engage in short-term thinking and are biased toward the status quo".
LOAD-DATE: November 2, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
445 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 2, 2014 Sunday 11:00 AM GMT
Brisbane airport rejects climate change billboard as 'too political';
Environment groups sought to place ad calling for action on climate change in arrivals hall to coincide with G20 meeting
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 655 words
Brisbane airport has rejected an advertising billboard depicting a farmer calling for action on climate change on the grounds that the issue is "too political".
Environment and development groups had sought to place the billboard in the airport's arrivals hall in time for the G20 leaders' meeting in two weeks time.
Linked with a social media campaign, it originally said "Action on climate change is #onmyagenda, Dear G20 leaders please put it on yours" a reference to Australia's resistance to having climate change on the G20 agenda at all.
The groups then agreed to remove the words "Dear G20 leaders" - leaving the billboard to read simply "Action on climate change is #onmyagenda, please put it on yours".
But according to WWF chief executive Dermot O'Gorman, media buyer Ooh!media replied that the airport was still rejecting the billboard, which features South Australian farmer David Bruer, "because they consider climate change as being too political".
Another billboard, with the same message, featuring firefighter Dean McNulty, will be erected on the route leaders are likely to take to the site of the G20 meeting.
"The #onmyagenda partners were surprised by the decision to reject the billboard. The reality is climate change is a global problem affecting economies, societies and environments all around the world, we can't afford to sweep it under the carpet, we owe it to future generations to deal with it right here, right now," O'Gorman said.
Bruer, who owns a vineyard in South Australia, told Guardian Australia he was "surprised more than anything else".
"They say climate change is political. Actually it is a reality for farmers like me," Bruer said. He lost $25,000 worth of grapes in one day last year when the temperature reached 46 degrees C.
Australia has reluctantly conceded that climate change can be included in a single brief paragraph of the G20 leaders' communique after heavy lobbying by the US and European nations.
The government had resisted any discussion of climate at the Brisbane meeting on the grounds that the G20 is primarily an economic forum, but other nations argued leaders' agreements at meetings like the G20 are crucial to build momentum towards a successful international deal at the United Nations conference on climate change in Paris next year.
The final wording of the leaders' statement after the meeting is still being finalised but it is believed to simply recommit to addressing climate change through UN processes.
The outcome - and Australia's fierce resistance to a discussion of climate change - have been attacked by the leading climate economist Nicholas Stern, who has written for Guardian Australia that the latest "synthesis" report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) should be "high on the agenda" for the G20 meeting.
"The G20 is the most effective forum for the discussion of the growth story of the future, the transition to the low-carbon economy. Yet the local politics of a country of less than 25 million is being allowed to prevent essential strategic discussions of an issue that is of fundamental importance to the prosperity and wellbeing of the world's population of seven billion people," he writes.
Australia has agreed the G20 should discuss climate-related issues as part of its deliberations on energy efficiency, but this also appears to be wrapped up in a general commitment that countries consider taking action in the future on some of a long list of areas where energy efficiency improvements might be made.
Groups involved in the advertising campaign include Oxfam, Greenpeace, 350.0rg, WWF, Earth Hour, GetUp, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Australian Youth Climate Coalition and 1 Million Women.
They are encouraging people to tweet G20 leaders asking them "to include climate change as a stand-alone item on the G20 agenda, as it was on the previous eight G20 summits".
Brisbane airport was contacted for comment.
LOAD-DATE: November 2, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
446 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 2, 2014 Sunday 10:33 AM GMT
IPCC: rapid carbon emission cuts vital to stop 'severe' impact of climate change;
Most important assessment of global warming yet warns carbon emissions must be cut sharply and soon, but UN's IPCC says solutions are available and affordable
BYLINE: Damian Carrington in Copenhagen
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 1373 words
Climate change is set to inflict "severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts" on people and the natural world unless carbon emissions are cut sharply and rapidly, according to the most important assessment of global warming yet published.
The stark report states that climate change has already increased the risk of severe heatwaves and other extreme weather and warns of worse to come, including food shortages and violent conflicts. But it also found that ways to avoid dangerous global warming are both available and affordable.
"We have the means to limit climate change," said Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). "The solutions are many and allow for continued economic and human development. All we need is the will to change."
The report, which the IPPC is releasing in Copenhagen on Sunday , is the work of thousands of scientists and was agreed after negotiations by all the world's governments. It is the first IPCC report since 2007 to bring together all aspects of tackling climate change and for the first time states: that it is economically affordable; that carbon emissions will ultimately have to fall to zero; and that global poverty can only be reduced by halting global warming. The report also makes clear that carbon emissions, mainly from burning coal, oil and gas, are currently rising to record levels, not falling.
The report comes at a critical time for international action on climate change, with the deadline for a global deal just over a year away. In September, 120 national leaders met at the UN in New York to address climate change, while hundreds of thousands of marchers around the world demanded action.
Lord Nicholas Stern, a professor at the London School of Economics and the author of an influential earlier study, said the new IPCC report was the " most important assessment of climate change ever prepared " and that it made plain that "further delays in tackling climate change would be dangerous and profoundly irrational".
"The reality of climate change is undeniable, and cannot be simply wished away by politicians who lack the courage to confront the scientific evidence," he said, adding that the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people were at risk.
Bill McKibben, a high-profile climate campaigner with 350.org, said: "For scientists, conservative by nature, to use 'serious, pervasive, and irreversible' to describe the effects of climate falls just short of announcing that climate change will produce a zombie apocalypse plus random beheadings plus Ebola." Breaking the power of the fossil fuel industry would not be easy, McKibben said. "But, thanks to the IPCC, no one will ever be able to say they weren't warned."
The new overarching IPCC report builds on previous reports on the science, impacts and solutions for climate change. It concludes that global warming is "unequivocal", that humanity's role in causing it is "clear" and that many effects will last for hundreds to thousands of years even if the planet's rising temperature is halted.
In terms of impacts, such as heatwaves and extreme rain storms causing floods, the report concludes that the effects are already being felt: "In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans."
Droughts, coastal storm surges from the rising oceans and wildlife extinctions on land and in the seas will all worsen unless emissions are cut, the report states. This will have knock-on effects, according to the IPCC: "Climate change is projected to undermine food security." The report also found the risk of wars could increase: "Climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts by amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks."
Two-thirds of all the emissions permissible if dangerous climate change is to be avoided have already been pumped into the atmosphere, the IPPC found. The lowest cost route to stopping dangerous warming would be for emissions to peak by 2020 - an extremely challenging goal - and then fall to zero later this century.
The report calculates that to prevent dangerous climate change, investment in low-carbon electricity and energy efficiency will have to rise by several hundred billion dollars a year before 2030. But it also found that delaying significant emissions cuts to 2030 puts up the cost of reducing carbon dioxide by almost 50%, partly because dirty power stations would have to be closed early. "If you wait, you also have to do more difficult and expensive things," said Jim Skea, a professor at Imperial College London and an IPCC working group vice chair.
Tackling climate change need only trim economic growth rates by a tiny fraction, the IPCC states, and may actually improve growth by providing other benefits, such as cutting health-damaging air pollution.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) - the nascent technology which aims to bury CO2 underground - is deemed extremely important by the IPPC. It estimates that the cost of the big emissions cuts required would more than double without CCS.
The focus on CCS is not because the technology has advanced a great deal in recent years, said Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a professor at the Université Catholique de Louvain in Belgium and vice-chair of the IPCC, but because emissions have continued to increase so quickly. "We have emitted so much more, so we have to clean up more later", he said.
Linking CCS to the burning of wood and other plant fuels would reduce atmospheric CO2 levels because the carbon they contain is sucked from the air as they grow. But van Ypersele said the IPCC report also states "very honestly and fairly" that there are risks to this approach, such as conflicts with food security.
In contrast to the importance the IPCC gives to CCS, abandoning nuclear power or deploying only limited wind or solar power increases the cost of emission cuts by just 6-7%. The report also states that behavioural changes, such as dietary changes that could involve eating less meat, can have a role in cutting emissions.
As part of setting out how the world's nations can cut emissions effectively, the IPCC report gives prominence to ethical considerations. "[Carbon emission cuts] and adaptation raise issues of equity, justice, and fairness," says the report. "The evidence suggests that outcomes seen as equitable can lead to more effective [international] cooperation."
These issues are central to the global climate change negotiations and their inclusion in the report was welcomed by campaigners, as was the statement that adapting countries and coastlines to cope with global warming cannot by itself avert serious impacts.
"Rich governments must stop making empty promises and come up with the cash so the poorest do not have to foot the bill for the lifestyles of the wealthy," said Harjeet Singh, from ActionAid.
The statement that carbon emissions must fall to zero was "gamechanging", according to Kaisa Kosonen, from Greenpeace. "We can still limit warming to 2C, or even 1.5C or less even, [but] we need to phase out emissions," she said. Unlike CCS, which is yet to be proven commercially, she said renewable energy was falling rapidly in cost.
Sam Smith, from WWF, said: "The big change in this report is that it shows fighting climate change is not going to cripple economies and that it is essential to bringing people out of poverty. What is needed now is concerted political action." The rapid response of politicians to the recent global financial crisis showed, according to Smith, that "they could act quickly and at scale if they are sufficiently motivated".
Campaigners played down the moves made by some countries with large fossil fuel reserves to weaken the language of the draft IPCC report written by scientists and seen by the Guardian, saying the final report was conservative but strong.
However, the statement that "climate change is expected to lead to increases in ill-health in many regions, including greater likelihood of death" was deleted in the final report, along with criticism that politicians sometimes "engage in short-term thinking and are biased toward the status quo".
LOAD-DATE: November 2, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
447 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 2, 2014 Sunday 5:01 AM GMT
Clive Palmer: Direct Action won't work but it's better than nothing;
PUP leader says he doesn't believe the Coalition's plan can deliver Australia's minimum 5% greenhouse gas reduction target and 'we're going to need another policy pretty soon'
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, political editor
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 581 words
Clive Palmer does not believe the Coalition's $2.5bn Direct Action plan can deliver Australia's minimum 5% greenhouse gas reduction target but says his senators voted for it last week because it was "better than having nothing".
"It's clear Direct Action won't give us the 5% reductions," Palmer told Guardian Australia. "We're going to need another policy pretty soon. But in the short-term it's better to have something reducing emissions than having nothing."
Palmer, whose senators also voted to repeal the former government's emissions trading scheme - which is how Australia was left without a climate policy - said he believed Australia would eventually have to move to such a scheme.
As part of a deal to secure PUP's votes in the Direct Action vote last week, the government has agreed to commission the Climate Change Authority to inquire into an emissions trading scheme - something Palmer says will "keep the debate alive until the next election".
The government insists its new scheme might even exceed its 5% target.
The environment minister, Greg Hunt, confirmed he would begin doling out the money - allocated via competitive "auctions" - early next year and said there was strong interest from businesses and other groups that wanted to participate.
"The level of interest and pipeline of projects have been greater than expected," he said, insisting the government would achieve the 5% target within its budget. The prime minister, Tony Abbott, has made it clear no more money will be allocated.
Elisa de Wit, a climate change lawyer and partner at Norton Rose Fulbright, said the early recipients of Direct Action money were likely to be in areas that were already developing a set of rules under the existing carbon farming scheme - including projects to capture and either flare or use gas from landfill and waste plants, projects to avoid deforestation, and projects to capture gas from coal mines.
Hunt said the government was "developing methodologies which will be released shortly. There are 26 out there, another more than 20 under development for things such as aggregated household energy efficiency, for cleaning up power stations, for cleaning up waste coal mine gas, for cleaning up emissions from waste water and sewerage farms."
Labor's environment spokesman, Mark Butler, predicted Direct Action would be a waste of money. "Tony Abbott and Greg Hunt stand up, put their hands on their hearts and say `We are going to achieve the 5% reduction'," he told the ABC's Insiders.
"No one else believes it. No one else has said we have a chance under this policy to achieve a 5% reduction, let alone the more ambitious discussions that will be the subject at international negotiations next year."
But the government's chances of meeting the target are bolstered by the big reduction in Australia's emissions before Direct Action has even started, in part due to the decline in manufacturing.
In 2012 the Coalition's promise to reduce emissions by 5% of 2000 levels by 2020 was calculated to require the cumulative reduction of 755m tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Last year new government calculations reduced that figure to 431m tonnes.
Further calculations by Frontier Economics say the figure could be as low as 225m tonnes if the renewable energy target (RET) stays in place to drive investment into clean generation, or somewhere around 300m tonnes if the government succeeds in paring back the RET. Official figures are soon likely to confirm this drop.
LOAD-DATE: November 2, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
448 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
November 2, 2014 Sunday 4:44 AM GMT
G20: Australia makes token concession on climate change after US lobbying;
Government resists calls for climate change to be listed as a major agenda item, but agrees to include in final communique
BYLINE: Lenore Taylor, Guardian Australia political editor
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 596 words
Australia has reluctantly conceded that climate change can be included in a single brief paragraph of the G20 leaders' communique after heavy lobbying by the US and European nations.
The government had resisted any discussion of climate at the Brisbane meeting on the grounds that the G20 is primarily an economic forum, but other nations argued leaders' agreements at meetings like the G20 are crucial to build momentum towards a successful international deal at the United Nations conference on climate change in Paris next year.
The final wording of the leaders' statement after the meeting is still being finalised but it is believed to simply recommit to addressing climate change through UN processes.
The outcome - and Australia's resistance - have been attacked by the leading climate economist Lord Nicholas Stern, who has written for Guardian Australia that the latest "synthesis" report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) should be "high on the agenda" for the G20 meeting.
"The G20 is the most effective forum for the discussion of the growth story of the future, the transition to the low-carbon economy. Yet the local politics of a country of less than 25 million is being allowed to prevent essential strategic discussions of an issue that is of fundamental importance to the prosperity and well-being of the world's population of 7 billion people," he writes.
Australia has agreed the G20 should discuss climate-related issues as part of its deliberations on energy efficiency, but this also appears to be wrapped up in a general commitment that countries consider taking action in the future on some of a long list of areas where energy efficiency improvements might be made.
Australia is understood to be taking the "lead" at the talks on moves for better energy efficiency in building standards - something Australia may achieve with funding from its new $2.5bn Direct Action climate scheme.
The US is "leading" on improvements in heavy vehicle emission standards, and other nations on improvements in the efficiency of household appliances and devices like computers and phones.
None of the discussions are likely to require G20 nations to commit to anything, but the Australian government has also been considering new undertakings on light vehicle emission standards - especially after domestic car production ceases, when it would not have any impact on Australian manufacturing.
Progress on implementing the G20 leaders' decision in September 2009 to "rationalise and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption" has also been slow. A proposal for countries to voluntarily submit their progress towards this goal for "peer review" has been met with fierce resistance.
In a special "message" about the G20 release on Sunday, Tony Abbott also did not mention climate change. "The G20 focus will be on the fundamentals of the economy: trade, infrastructure, tax and banking. Our discussions will include the $1trn worldwide infrastructure gap, reducing tax avoidance by global companies and increasing participation in the workforce.
"While a stronger economy won't solve every problem, it will make almost every problem easier to tackle."
Abbott has previously insisted it is important to keep a clear and narrow focus for the G20 agenda "to ensure that these international meetings don't cover all subjects and illuminate none".
US president Barack Obama's international adviser, Caroline Atkinson, has insisted publicly that leaders around the table at the G20 will raise climate change.
LOAD-DATE: November 2, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
449 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 2, 2014 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
The Missing Campus Climate Debate
BYLINE: By EVAN J. MANDERY.
A professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the author of ''A Wild Justice: The Death and Resurrection of Capital Punishment in America.''
SECTION: Section SR; Column 0; Sunday Review Desk; OPINION; Pg. 5
LENGTH: 1192 words
CLIMATE CHANGE is our era's defining challenge, but most of America's universities are planning to sit this one out. Though students and faculty members at more than 400 colleges have called for administrators to divest from fossil-fuel energy companies, fewer than 20 have committed to doing so. Stanford recently divested from coal, but none of the other schools had endowments within the 150 largest in 2013.
The principal justification schools offer is that endowments should be reserved to advance an academic mission. As Cornell's president, David J. Skorton, put it, ''We must resist, in almost all cases, the temptation to manage these precious funds to further social or political causes, no matter how worthy.'' Drew Gilpin Faust, Harvard's president, said, ''The endowment is a resource, not an instrument to impel social or political change.''
These statements stunned me. Academics are a liberal lot. Research -- much of which is conducted at universities -- overwhelmingly supports the fact that climate change is man-made. How can it be that so few universities are willing to take on global warming? How can they defend their position by saying they have an obligation not to consider morality when they invest?
Let's separate what universities say from what they mean. Their appeal to the image of university as ivory tower, where objective research is conducted in social isolation, rings hollow. Universities have cultivated relationships with businesses, governments and donors for commercial and political purposes. Derek C. Bok, a former Harvard president, wrote, ''The 'ivory tower' has been breached at so many points and the connections with the outside world have grown so numerous and close that the term no longer has descriptive value.'' Every university president knows this.
Every university president also knows that endowment managers don't have unfettered discretion. Would anyone defend a university that bought stock in a company known to employ child laborers? Moral considerations have altered investment policies in the past. More than 150 schools divested from South Africa during apartheid -- albeit reluctantly. Others divested from the tobacco industry and select Sudanese companies.
What presidents really mean is something more nuanced, like ''divestment should be considered only in extraordinary cases about which there is broad consensus.'' You can see why they might feel this way. Causes abound. Portuguese colonialism in Africa was the outrage in 1972 when Harvard students occupied university buildings and the word ''divestiture'' first emerged. Today, students are calling for divestment from prison companies, China and Israel. It's easy to see how taking sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would undermine universities' role as a forum for open debate.
Divestment is a slippery slope. Where do universities draw the line? Columbia's president, Lee C. Bollinger, says, ''The bar has to be very high, and the reason is there are lots of things that people don't like about the world.''
But what better forum than the university could there be for distinguishing among competing moral claims? Knowing students and professors, these debates would be prolonged, but it's easy enough to structure the questions that would be asked and how they'd be answered regarding fossil fuels.
First, what is the significance of the social cause? University presidents have overwhelmingly acknowledged the harm caused by fossil fuels, though some, including Brown's president, Christina H. Paxson, have argued that ''this harm is moderated by the fact that coal is currently necessary for the functioning of the global economy.''
Then we'd ask about the school's mission. Perhaps investments in fossil fuel are justified if profits are used for social good, like financial aid programs, which are supported by endowments. But most elite private colleges remain bastions of privilege. Public universities -- especially community colleges, which have better track records on access -- have a more compelling claim on this defense.
Next, how much would divestment cost? Not much. According to a 2012 report sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute, oil and natural gas constituted merely 2.1 percent of endowment holdings. Some research suggests that endowments would have performed better over the past decade had they excluded fossil-fuel companies.
Finally, how would divestment advance the cause? Defending Western Washington University's decision to remain invested in fossil fuels, the president, Bruce Shepard, wrote, ''Everybody understands that divestment by our foundation would have no material effect on climate change.'' More constructive, wrote Ms. Faust, would be to ''think about how we might use our voice not to ostracize such companies but to encourage them to be a positive force.'' This recalls South African divestment campaigns, when presidents argued universities could exert more leverage if they remained invested. But Nelson Mandela and the South African president, F. W. de Klerk, each cited divestment as influential. Endowments have quadrupled in size since 1990, in real dollars.
Of course, the National Party had the power to end apartheid. Even the most optimistic environmentalist cannot envision fossil-fuel usage ending immediately. ''I also find a troubling inconsistency,'' wrote Ms. Faust, ''in the notion that, as an investor, we should boycott a whole class of companies at the same time that, as individuals and as a community, we are extensively relying on those companies' products and services for so much of what we do every day.''
It's a valid point, but if presidents think it relieves them of all duty, they aren't listening to the distinction students and faculty have drawn between driving corporations out of business and changing their behavior. For fossil-fuel companies don't just extract and sell energy. They also spend on elections and oppose renewable energy standards. Investment could be contingent on a company's agreeing to curtail its political spending, report on climate change or include environmental experts on its board. Universities could distinguish among fossil-fuel companies and industries, as Stanford did in divesting from coal.
It's impossible to imagine that after a fair debate only a handful of universities would choose to do anything. But it's not a fair debate. Shared governance -- students, teachers and administrators making decisions together -- is a defining feature of the university. This unique issue is being decided by trustees, who see their responsibility as maximizing returns. Gofossilfree.org has identified only 41 schools with investor responsibility committees, but they are advisory, with authority reserved to the fiduciaries.
Of course, global warming is at bottom a dilemma about the nature of fiduciary duty -- about whether that duty is solely to make money or whether we also owe an ethical obligation to endangered species, the inhabitants of low-lying islands and our children. If this debate included more voices, one can't help but imagine that our universities might construe their obligation more broadly.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/02/opinion/sunday/the-missing-campus-climate-debate.html
LOAD-DATE: November 2, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: DRAWING (DRAWING BY ANDREW HOLDER)
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Op-Ed
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
450 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Dot Earth)
November 2, 2014 Sunday
Panel's Latest Warming Warning Misses Global Slumber Party on Energy Research
BYLINE: ANDREW C. REVKIN
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 1547 words
HIGHLIGHT: The latest global warming report from the U.N. climate panel helpfully clarifies risks but largely misses a key factor in driving an energy transformation — research.
The year-long rollout of the latest assessment of climate change science and solutions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ended today in Copenhagen with the release of a final synthesis report offering an overview of the world's climate trajectories and choices.
This report cuts across the earlier panel reviews of basic climate science and related economic, technical and policy questions to identify overarching themes.
There's much that's valuable, if familiar, including a recitation of ways to limit the buildup of greenhouse gases:
But there's also much that is important but largely missing. Look a little closer at the second of four steps above: "Greater use of low-carbon and no-carbon energy; many of these technologies exist today."
The new synthesis tends to echo the panel's earlier reports on global warming mitigation options, implying that a price on carbon and some shifts in policy (subsidies, for instance) are all that's needed for an swift and affordable transition from conventional use of fossil fuels.
But without a substantial boost in basic research and development and large-scale demonstration projects related to technologies like mass energy storage, capturing and storing carbon dioxide, grid management and a new generation of nuclear plants, it's hard to see timely progress.
In all of the graphics and take-home points in the panel's synthesis effort, the only language I can find on these points is turgid and buried. Skip to the bottom of this post to see what I mean.
In the long slide presentation shown at the Copenhagen release, somehow the panel failed to fit in a single graph like this one from the International Energy Agency showing how utterly inconsequential energy research is in advanced democracies (the O.E.C.D.) compared to budgets for science on other things we care about:
I'd be interested to see a full analysis, including in China, of research budgets over time, as with this look at America's science investments since the Space Race (I've published some version of this graph regularly since my 2006 page-one article, "Budgets Falling in Race to Fight Global Warming":
After some great exchanges on Twitter around the #climate2014 hashtag today, I asked Constantine Samaras, an assistant professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, to amplify on this point about research spending:
There's a cliché among policy wonks, which also happens to be true: "the budget is policy."
Governments define their near-term and long-term priorities line item by line item on every fiscal year budget. In 2000, the U.S. Federal R&D budget for "activities to develop technologies to deter, prevent, or mitigate terrorist acts" was $511 million. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the R&D budget for counterterrorism grew to almost $2.7 billion in 2003.
This was a focused effort across several agencies to respond to new threats. Although this growth trend in counterterrorism R&D did not continue at the same pace over the past decade (e.g. DHS's S&T budget: http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/DHS_0.jpg), the initial threats resulted in policymakers tasking the U.S. R&D infrastructure to find new ways to reduce risks to the country.
The impacts from climate change also pose risks to the United States, but policymakers are responding to these risks with much less seriousness than the response to terrorism. The latest I.P.C.C. climate change synthesis report estimates that greenhouse gas mitigation pathways likely to limit warming to below 2 degree Celsius would have a median cost of reducing growth by 0.06% per year (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPM.pdf, SPM.12).
Yet this estimate assumes an energy technology portfolio that includes "renewables, nuclear energy, and fossil energy with carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS), or bioenergy with CCS (BECCS)" (Oliver Geden highlighted this point).
Designing, constructing, deploying and operating a global energy portfolio like this at scale, and in time, requires advances in knowledge and cost reductions enabled by R&D. To increase the likelihood that new energy technologies will perform well and enhance resiliency in a warming world, we also need improvements in the fundamental understanding and prediction of climate change impacts.
Yet, the U.S. energy technology (http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/DOE_0.jpg) and global change research (http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/USGCRP_0.jpg) R&D budgets have been relatively flat and completely unrepresentative of the challenge.
We correctly reacted to counterterrorism with enhanced R&D after 2001, yet on energy and climate change we're effectively just muddling through.
There has been a clear and consistent disconnect between the real risks of climate change, and the R&D needed to limit those risks. If the budget is policy, then the levels of U.S. energy technology R&D signal that our policy on climate change is incremental, rather than transformative.
Mind you, there's plenty of value in the synthesis report, including this graphic showing how different paths for annual carbon dioxide emissions in coming decades could amplify or blunt risks from warming:
Justin Gillis's news article on the release captures the main points:
If governments are to meet their own stated goal of limiting the warming of the planet to no more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or 2 degrees Celsius, above the preindustrial level, they must restrict emissions from additional fossil-fuel burning to about 1 trillion tons of carbon dioxide, the panel said.
At current growth rates, that budget is likely to be exhausted in something like 30 years. Yet energy companies have already booked coal and petroleum reserves equal to several times that amount, and they are spending some $600 billion a year to find more. Utilities and oil companies are still building coal-fired power plants and refineries, and governments are spending another $600 billion directly subsidizing the consumption of fossil fuels.
By contrast, the report found, less than $400 billion a year is being spent around the world to reduce emissions or otherwise cope with climate change. That sum is smaller than the revenue of a single American oil company, ExxonMobil.
Elizabeth Shogren has written a useful National Geographic piece providing more detail on the main messages.
Click for the summary for policymakers, the full report and a slide presentation.
But until climate and energy analysts get realistic about conveying the full scope of what's needed, including a sustained investment in energy science sufficient to build the basis for a grand energy transition, the global slumber party, and global warming, will continue.
I promised to point you to the thrilling passages on energy research and development (R&D) from the climate panel's final report.
Here's the sizzling take-home point from the summary for policymakers (section 4.4 here):
Technology policy (development, diffusion and transfer) complements other mitigation policies across all scales, from international to sub-national; many adaptation efforts also critically rely on diffusion and transfer of technologies and management practices (high confidence). Policies exist to address market failures in R&D, but the effective use of technologies can also depend on capacities to adopt technologies appropriate to local circumstances.
And here's the lone reference in the longer synthesis report (the section here marked 4.4.3., Technology Development and Transfer):
Technology policy (development, diffusion and transfer) complements other mitigation policies across all scales from international to sub-national, but worldwide investment in research in support of GHG [greenhouse gas] mitigation is small relative to overall public research spending (high confidence). Technology policy includes technology-push (e.g. publicly-funded R&D) and demand-pull (e.g. governmental procurement programs). Such policies address a pervasive market failure because, in the absence of government policy such as patent protection, the invention of new technologies and practices from R&D efforts has aspects of a public good and thus tends to be under-provided by market forces alone. Technology support policies have promoted substantial innovation and diffusion of new technologies, but the cost-effectiveness of such policies is often difficult to assess. Technology policy can increase incentives for participation and compliance with international cooperative efforts, particularly in the long run.
I queried quite a few report authors about this. The first reply is in, from , the vice chairman of the climate panel and a helpful dynamo on Twitter on global warming: "I agree with you it could have been a stronger message...."
Related reading | Please have a look at Eric Roston's provocative and spot-on piece on the fading importance of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: "Everything we know about climate change. In one unreadable pile. Every six years."
His piece builds on some of the ideas articulated on Dot Earth by the climate scientist Ken Caldeira back in 2011.
Brad Plumer has a fine analysis of the science and policy findings at Vox.com.
LOAD-DATE: November 4, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
451 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 1, 2014 Saturday
Late Edition - Final
Delegates Fail to Agree on Creation of Marine Reserves
BYLINE: By MICHELLE INNIS
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 9
LENGTH: 611 words
SYDNEY, Australia -- International talks in Australia on establishing two marine reserve areas, each larger than Texas, in the waters around Antarctica ended in failure on Friday, with some delegates to the negotiations saying that China and Russia had resisted the proposals.
The United States and New Zealand had jointly proposed the creation of a 500,000-square-mile reserve in the Ross Sea, in the hopes of alleviating pressure on Antarctic species facing the effects of climate change and fishing. A second major proposal, from Australia, France and the European Union, would have set up a series of four reserves in the east Antarctic waters, covering about 386,000 square miles.
But neither was approved at the annual meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, which ended Friday in the Australian city of Hobart after two weeks of talks among government officials, scientists and environmentalists from 24 countries and the European Union.
Any one of the commission's member states can block a major proposal like the creation of a marine reserve. The commission does not make its deliberations public, but several nonvoting delegates from nongovernmental organizations said China and Russia were the only countries to speak against the two proposals, both of which have been presented before in various iterations.
''The overall political situation, where Russia is in a political confrontation with other countries, mainly Western or NATO countries, overshadows negotiations'' at international forums like the marine commission, said Grigory Tsidulko, a Russian member of the nongovernmental organization Antarctic Ocean Alliance, who attended the talks.
Jiliang Chen of the Chinese nongovernmental organization Greenovation Hub said that China's official delegation was reluctant to make long-term decisions about large-scale marine reserves, particularly given ambitions to expand the country's fishing fleet.
''But change is happening in China,'' Mr. Chen said. ''National policies are moving towards environmental protection. Good things are happening domestically so I hope we can, in future, contribute more to the conservation of the Antarctic.''
Evan Bloom of the United States State Department, who led the American delegation, said the ecosystem in the proposed Ross Sea reserve ''deserves protection because it hosts large populations of penguins, seals, whales, fishes and other animals that are vulnerable to climate change, in a unique location.'' The New Zealand delegation said the Ross Sea, one of the most pristine natural regions in the world, is home to almost a third of the world's Adélie penguins and Antarctic petrels.
Scientists have warned that sections of the Antarctic are warming more rapidly than other parts of the globe, resulting in ocean acidification and the degradation of sea ice. ''Cold waters absorb more carbon dioxide,'' said Bob Zuur, a delegate to the talks from WWF. ''A lot of animals and plants, especially animals like krill, suffer as acidity levels rise.''
''Krill is the lifeblood of the ocean,'' Mr. Zuur added. ''It supports the biodiversity in the Southern Ocean, from huge whales to tiny petrels to seals and penguins.''
Mark Epstein, a delegate from the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition, said it was clear from the meetings that the vast majority of delegates supported marine reserves. ''That's very positive,'' he said. ''There have been substantive conversations around how marine protected areas should function. But we need a game-change moment to get us through this impasse.''
This is a more complete version of the story than the one that appeared in print.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/01/world/asia/china-and-russia-said-to-block-creation-of-antarctic-marine-reserves.html
LOAD-DATE: November 1, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
452 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
November 1, 2014 Saturday
Late Edition - Final
How to Mend the Conservation Divide
BYLINE: By EMMA MARRIS and GREG APLET.
Emma Marris is the author of ''Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World.'' Greg Aplet is the senior science director at the Wilderness Society.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS; Pg. 25
LENGTH: 913 words
A SCHISM has recently divided those who love nature.
''New conservationists'' have been shaking up the field, proposing new approaches that break old taboos -- moving species to new ranges in advance of climate change, intervening in designated wilderness areas, using nonnative species as functional stand-ins for those that have become extinct, and embracing novel ecosystems that spring up in humanized landscapes.
Some ''old conservationists'' have reacted angrily to this, preferring to keep the focus on protecting wilderness and performing classical restoration that keeps ecosystems as they were hundreds of years ago. Editorials, essays and books have been lobbed back and forth, feathers have been ruffled and conservation groups and government officials have felt pressure from both sides.
The truth is, despite the disagreements, both groups love nature and want to protect it. These seemingly competing alternatives are really complementary parts of the smartest strategy: We should try everything.
Conservation used to seem pretty straightforward: set aside tracts of nature and they will take care of themselves. It is not so simple anymore. Nature left unmanaged is changing in surprising ways because of the great and accelerating human influences of what is being called the Anthropocene -- the new epoch of climate change, species movements and global-scale land-use change. Today, keeping nature functioning the way it did before the Industrial Revolution requires increasingly hard and expensive work.
At Yellowstone National Park, for example, nonnative trout are fished out of lakes; nonnative plants are ripped up; bison are culled to preset numbers. In California, salmon fry are trucked down to the ocean when drought dries up streams. In Maryland and Virginia, baby oysters are raised in hatcheries, then released into the Chesapeake Bay.
At the same time, we have begun tinkering with nature to help it cope. In North Carolina, blight-resistant genes from Asian trees are bred into American chestnuts so that the mighty trees, devastated by human-introduced disease, might again dot Eastern forests. In the Indian Ocean, tortoises from the Seychelles are introduced to other islands to play the role of extinct tortoises there, eating fruit and dispersing seeds. In Canada, foresters replant harvested areas with seedlings from areas farther south or lower in altitude, betting that they will better survive a warmer climate.
In other cases, what seemed obviously helpful has turned out to hurt. A gallfly introduced to control spotted knapweed in the West ended up nourishing deer mice, which flourished and began gorging themselves on the seeds of the native plants the knapweed was threatening. In California, restoration projects to pull out nonnative spartina grass on beaches were called into question when the endangered clapper rail was found to nest there. Controlling nature can be risky.
So what should we do? Should we continue to invest in keeping ecosystems in historical configurations? Should we attempt to engineer landscapes to be resilient to tomorrow's conditions? Or should we just let nature adapt on its own?
We should do all three. In the face of great uncertainty, the sensible thing to do is hedge our bets and allocate large swaths of landscape to all three approaches: restoration, innovation and hands-off observation.
In the United States, the large landholdings of the federal government should be managed this way. We can classically restore in culturally resonant places like national parks, preserving the beloved landscapes and dynamics that sustained those ecosystems over thousands of years. Where we innovate, ideally in landscapes already significantly altered, we can focus our scientific talents and technology on species conservation, preserving the fantastic diversity of life.
And where we keep our hands off, perhaps in areas already set aside as wilderness, we can preserve nature wild and untrammeled. Unmanaged places like wilderness areas will most likely take on new and unexpected aspects as the climate changes. Familiar species will disappear and new species will move in. But we can learn as nature adapts to these challenges without our meddling.
No one approach will save everything. Ceasing all management will put many threatened species at risk for extinction. Restoring ecosystems to historical baselines may prevent them from adapting to change and lead to collapse. And innovation means creating untested systems that may also fail. Mistakes are inevitable. But at each site, we should fully commit to a single strategy. Otherwise, we risk a haphazard stew of approaches that don't meet any goal.
The vast majority of conservationists are neither old nor new. They don't even self-identify as conservationists. But if you would rather that bulldozers not raze the woods, desert or beach you love, then you are a conservationist. If you would rather that the tiger or bog turtle not go extinct, then you are a conservationist. And, if you like the idea that some places should be truly wild and free, then you are a conservationist.
No matter which reason motivates you most, working together and using a diversity of approaches is far better than inaction or squabbling. With hard work, political support and lots of money, we can have the cherished landscapes, the most endangered species, and the comfort of knowing there is still wild nature left. We just can't expect to have them all in the same place.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/01/opinion/how-to-mend-the-conservation-divide.html
LOAD-DATE: November 1, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Op-Ed
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
453 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 31, 2014 Friday 4:28 PM GMT
How one Brazilian slum is blurring the boundary between forest and city;
Vila Brasilândia, a slum city on the edge of São Paulo, has found unconventional ways to tackle urbanisation, resource scarcity and climate change
BYLINE: May East
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 764 words
The theme of the first World Cities Day is 'leading urban transformations'. It is particularly apt for the inhabitants of the Brazilian slum city of Vila Brasilândia, who have shown resilience and ingenuity in the face of urbanisation, resource scarcity and climate change.
In many countries, including my native Brazil, urbanisation has been accompanied by growing numbers of urban poor converging in overcrowded slums that offer few basic services. Around 12 million Brazilians live in slums (favelas) and one of the largest is Vila Brasilândia on the edge of Brazil's largest city, São Paulo.
The forest invades the city
The growth of Vila Brasilândia, fed by a constant influx of rural and coastal migrants, has been putting overwhelming pressure on the over-stretched infrastructure, and on the local environment.
The local population has been under pressure to find ways to reconcile deficient housing and the sustainable use of scarce natural resources. Bordering one of the remaining green belts of São Paulo, it has been encroaching into the urban forest of Cantareira for decades.
In response, Brasilândia recently launched a city-wide campaign called The Forest Invades the City, designed to redirect the trend of predatory human occupation by planting native trees, installing green roofs, and growing edible plants in abandoned public squares.
The sense of urgency has been heightened by this year's drought - the worst in 80 years - which has left São Paulo reservoirs nearly dry and the Cantareira water system operating at 3% of its capacity.
In the long term, climate change could exacerbate São Paulo's drought problem. Quinitino Jose Viama, a local elder who for decades has been conserving Brasilândia wells and streams, believes the work they do is a basis for conservation but also the prelude of an urban revolution.
"We are asking every woman, child and man to keep the seeds of the fruits we eat to support the creation of thousands of seedlings necessary for this forest occupation," he says.
The right to a good life
Somehow Brasilândia is challenging the notion that only after achieving a certain level of prosperity can one enjoy a quality of life. Its annual sustainable health fair, based on the South American concept of Bem Viver (the right to a good life) has proven hugely popular, attracting around 3000 people at each event.
Bem Viver is not about the individual; it reflects the rights we enjoy as a community, living and sharing life together. Since 2009, eight community gardens have been created and over 160 community health agents tour around the community on a regular basis, promoting local produce and giving demonstrations on how to cook nutritious and unusual meals, using a wide range of vegetables, seeds, flowers, grains, weeds and fruit.
This is just one of many innovative projects taking root around the world as part of the transition movement.
"Brasilândia has established an institute for the acceleration of our social enterprises," says Mônica Picavea from Transition Brasilândia, part of the transition towns movement which aims to help community projects build more resilient towns.
"We are taking a different route from the traditional concepts of growth and progress. In our strategy, community and environment drive the economy, not the other way round."
The institute began by developing a deeper understanding of their economy and mapping the existing business, working with dozens of artisan businesses led by community members - bakers, shoemakers, electricians and seamstresses - to create livelihoods and help drive Brasilândia's growing local economy.
The process of urbanisation has multiplied the capacity of the people of Brasilândia to find their own solutions. By unleashing their creativity, they are blurring the distinction between urban forest and city, water authorities and conservationists, health system and community gardens, local development and social enterprise. And for all their evident problems, they are living the good life.
Read more stories like this:
Challenging the old narrative that possessions equal prosperity
Why my 8,000 mile walk to meet Martin Luther King was worth it
Happiness and wellbeing trump material growth
May East is executive director of CIFAL Scotland
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: October 31, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
454 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 31, 2014 Friday 3:55 PM GMT
Ozone hole remains size of North America, Nasa data shows;
Antarctic hole in protective layer of gas stands around same level as 2010, 2012 and 2013, but scientists say recovery is on track
BYLINE: John Vidal
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 467 words
The Antarctic ozone hole, which was expected to reduce in size swiftly when manmade chlorine emissions were outlawed 27 years ago, is stubbornly remaining the size of North America, new data from Nasa suggests.
The hole in the thin layer of gas, which helps shield life on Earth from potentially harmful ultraviolet solar radiation that can cause skin cancers, grows and contracts throughout the year but reached its maximum extent on 9 September when monitors at the south pole showed it to cover 24.1m square km (9.3m sq miles). This is about 9% below the record maximum in 2000 but almost the same as in 2010, 2012 and 2013.
But scientists remain unsure why the hole has not reduced more since the Montreal Protocol agreement was signed by countries in 1987.
This global treaty is considered one of the world's most successful, having been pushed through in record time. It bans the use of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), substances that were widely-used in household and industrial products such as refrigerators, spray cans, insulation foam and fire suppressants.
"The ozone hole area is smaller than what we saw in the late-1990s and early 2000s, and we know that chlorine levels are decreasing. However, we are still uncertain about whether a long-term Antarctic stratospheric temperature warming might be reducing this ozone depletion," said Paul A Newman, chief scientist for atmospheres at Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
"It's broadly on track [to reduce in size]," said Dr Jonathan Shanklin, emeritus professor at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, one of the three scientists who discovered the hole in the 1980s. "We knew it was always going to take a long time to recover because the CFCs were long-lived."
He said the reason why it was not healing more quickly was because the interaction between climate change and the ozone hole was complex. "The ozone hole itself is affecting the climate of Antarctica and Australia, and is being affected by it. It is changing the wind systems.
"As the ozone hole [gradually] fills in, so we can expect, over the next 50 or so years, the effects of climate change to increase. We will see different patterns of climate change".
Last month the UN Environment Programme (Unep) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said there were "positive indications" that the ozone layer was on track to recovery, but warned it might take a further 35 years or more to recover to 1980 levels. They said that without the Montreal Protocol atmospheric levels of ozone depleting substances could have increased tenfold by 2050.
According to Unep, by 2030 the treaty will have prevented two million cases of skin cancer annually, averted damage to human eyes and immune systems, and protected wildlife and agriculture.
LOAD-DATE: October 31, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
455 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 31, 2014 Friday 3:19 PM GMT
Ozone hole layer remains size of North America, Nasa data shows;
Antarctic hole in protective layer of gas stands around same level as 2010, 2012 and 2013, but scientists say recovery is on track
BYLINE: John Vidal
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 467 words
The Antarctic ozone hole, which was expected to reduce in size swiftly when manmade chlorine emissions were outlawed 27 years ago, is stubbornly remaining the size of North America, new data from Nasa suggests.
The hole in the thin layer of gas, which helps shield life on Earth from potentially harmful ultraviolet solar radiation that can cause skin cancers, grows and contracts throughout the year but reached its maximum extent on 9 September when monitors at the south pole showed it to cover 24.1m square km (9.3m sq miles). This is about 9% below the record maximum in 2000 but almost the same as in 2010, 2012 and 2013.
But scientists remain unsure why the hole has not reduced more since the Montreal Protocol agreement was signed by countries in 1987.
This global treaty is considered one of the world's most successful, having been pushed through in record time. It bans the use of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), substances that were widely-used in household and industrial products such as refrigerators, spray cans, insulation foam and fire suppressants.
"The ozone hole area is smaller than what we saw in the late-1990s and early 2000s, and we know that chlorine levels are decreasing. However, we are still uncertain about whether a long-term Antarctic stratospheric temperature warming might be reducing this ozone depletion," said Paul A Newman, chief scientist for atmospheres at Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
"It's broadly on track [to reduce in size]," said Dr Jonathan Shanklin, emeritus professor at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, one of the three scientists who discovered the hole in the 1980s. "We knew it was always going to take a long time to recover because the CFCs were long-lived."
He said the reason why it was not healing more quickly was because the interaction between climate change and the ozone hole was complex. "The ozone hole itself is affecting the climate of Antarctica and Australia, and is being affected by it. It is changing the wind systems.
"As the ozone hole [gradually] fills in, so we can expect, over the next 50 or so years, the effects of climate change to increase. We will see different patterns of climate change".
Last month the UN Environment Programme (Unep) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said there were "positive indications" that the ozone layer was on track to recovery, but warned it might take a further 35 years or more to recover to 1980 levels. They said that without the Montreal Protocol atmospheric levels of ozone depleting substances could have increased tenfold by 2050.
According to Unep, by 2030 the treaty will have prevented two million cases of skin cancer annually, averted damage to human eyes and immune systems, and protected wildlife and agriculture.
LOAD-DATE: October 31, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
456 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 31, 2014 Friday 11:47 AM GMT
Direct Action is like a dodgy laundry powder that never gets the climate clean;
Australia passes new climate policy that fails to address the key problem of massive over use of fossil fuels
BYLINE: Graham Readfearn
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 692 words
Direct Action is the brand name of the freshly minted Australian Government policy to try and reduce the country's greenhouse gas emissions.
But with a name that sounds more like a dodgy box of laundry powder, Australia's "Direct Action" is unlikely to leave the country looking any cleaner or smelling any fresher in the climate change stakes.
That's because instead of removing the many stubborn stains that fossil fuel use leaves on the planet's climate systems, Australia's box of Direct Action comes with added coal dust.
How can it be seen otherwise when in the same week that Australia's Senate passed the Direct Action legislation, the finance minister Mathias Cormann told parliament "coal is good"?
Cormann was responding to a question from Greens senator Larissa Waters who had pointed out that in India, coal burned in power plants was so good it was responsible for killing an estimated 80,000 to 115,000 people a year.
Cormann's immediate response to this grim statistic was to smile and say "coal is good" before going on to tout the industry's new public relations line that their product will bring prosperity to the world.
This just a couple of weeks after prime minister Tony Abbott told us "coal is good for humanity" and the treasurer Joe Hockey similarly spruiked the coal industry's sudden concern for the world's poor.
Direct Action?
The now passed Direct Action legislation will create a $2.5bn pool (actually, only $1.15bn is so far allocated in forward budget estimates for this emissions reduction fund to 2017/18) to pay for projects that will lower emissions.
Companies will make bids into the cash pool for projects (examples might be soil carbon projects, efficiency measures at power stations or indigenous land management projects) and in a reverse-auction, the government will buy the cheapest emissions cuts.
The government insists this will be enough to meet the promised target of a five percent cut in emissions by 2020 based on their levels in 2000.
Except almost every analysis carried out into the Direct Action approach to meeting the target has said it will fall well short.
The latest from analysts Reputex said for the plan to meet the target, you would need between $3.3bn and $6bn extra per year.
In any case, the Climate Change Authority has already said this target - regardless of the policy used to get there - is "inadequate" in an international context and should be roughly tripled.
Tripled.
Remembering too that while the repealed carbon price legislation was based on the "polluter pays" principle, Direct Action asks taxpayers to pay for companies to cut their emissions.
If major polluting companies don't want to take part in the scheme, they can just ignore it.
Was there ever a climate change policy more symbolic in its likely failure than one that could only be passed with the help of a minor political party led by a man who wants to dig 40 million tonnes of coal a year for about 30 years out of Queensland's Galilee Basin (emitting an estimated 3,291 million tonnes of CO2-e into the atmosphere in the process)?
In short, Direct Action is a climate change policy that fails to have any impact on the key drivers of climate change - coal and other fossil fuels.
A policy that really did act directly on the issue would look to drive the growth of renewable energy, raise ambition on targets to cut emissions and cut the amount of coal and other fossil fuels being burned (it would also cut emissions from the transport sector - Australia is a virtual policy wasteland in this area).
While the Abbott government is delivering a policy that leaves the fossil fuel industry untouched, it carries out free advertising for coal and approves projects to expand coal extraction and exports.
Rather than rejoicing at the steady growth of renewables in the electricity sector, the government looks to castrate the policy driving the change.
The government's policy response to climate change is like trying to reduce lung cancer rates while neglecting to ask people to smoke less cigarettes.
Or, if you like, Direct Action expects you to get your washing clean with a laundry powder made from crushed up lumps of coal.
LOAD-DATE: October 31, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
457 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 31, 2014 Friday 9:30 AM GMT
Nigerian recycling initiative proves it's not all about hi-tech solutions;
Winner of the Sustainia Award 2014, Wecyclers enables low-income communities to make money from waste and while it's a low-tech innovation, its impact is high
BYLINE: Laura Storm
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 752 words
When it comes to climate change, we have the bad habit of focusing on the first part of the story, the part about the problem, and forgetting the second part about the many available solutions. These solutions are speeding up recycling, slowing down emissions and providing sustainable alternatives to plastic, air conditioning, smartphones and fast fashion.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is gathered in Copenhagen to present its latest report on the impacts and pace of climate change. Due for release on 2 November, we know the highlights of the report's message already. Climate change is now measured on all continents and our efforts to lower emissions must be intensified to avoid it escalating out of control. Along with outlining the risks and challenges, Copenhagen must also embrace and focus on the solutions.
In the spirit of focusing on what can be done, Sustainia Award, chaired by Arnold Schwarzenegger, tonight celebrated 10 leading sustainability solutions deployed in 84 countries. From food, fashion, energy, transportation, education and health, the awards showcased an alternative to the grim future scenarios we are so often presented with and made sustainability tangible to the innovators, investors, consumers and policy makers across sectors and regions.
From California, we saw how we can now produce plastics from greenhouse gases that are competitive with normal oil-based plastics in price and quality. From Switzerland, we learned how we can recycle and reuse old clothes and shoes more effectively in a recycle system currently deployed in over 60 countries. And from Canada, we learned how smartphones can make bike-sharing more convenient.
The 10 projects presented each offered unique solutions to sustainability challenges, but it was the Nigerian initiative Wecyclers that had Arnold Schwarzenegger and the rest of jury's vote and took the Sustainia Award 2014.
Wecyclers enables low-income communities to make money on waste piling up in their streets. By deploying a fleet of cargo bicycles to collect and recycle unmanaged waste in Lagos, Wecyclers lets families exchange garbage for consumer goods via an SMS-based point system.
Recycling companies purchase Wecyclers' sorted waste for reprocessing for products as mattresses, pillows and trash bags. Wecyclers is a response to local waste issues, where it's estimated that only 40% of the city's rubbish is collected. According to the World Bank only 46% of municipal solid waste in Africa is collected. More than 5,000 households have signed up so far and there are plans to extend the initiative to other cities throughout Nigeria.
Solutions to combat climate change are often perceived as hi-tech innovations focused on cutting emissions, creating infrastructure or efficiency. However, to successfully solve the variety of challenges, we need variety in our solutions as well. Sustainability is not solely a matter of bringing down emissions, it is also a question of using our natural resources more intelligently and creating healthier lives for ourselves. Initiatives might be low-tech in innovation, but high-impact when it comes to create sustainable change for entire communities.
With a wide range of solutions addressing the equally wide range of challenges, we must focus more on the important part of the story that creates enthusiasm, momentum and spur action for the much-needed change.
This article was amended on 31 October to reflect that Lagos is no longer the capital of Nigera
Laura Storm is executive director at Sustainia
Read more stories like this:
Energy efficient air conditioning is within sight
Personalising climate change through open data and apps
From fashion to transport: businesses are leading on sustainable innovation
The technology and innovation hub is funded by BT. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled advertisement feature. Find out more here .
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: October 31, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
458 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 31, 2014 Friday 6:00 AM GMT
Ten young film crews. Ten inspiring climate films;
Bernardo Bertolucci heads up the distinguished jury that chose the winners of the Action4Climate documentary competition
BYLINE: Connect4Climate
SECTION: CONNECT4CLIMATE PARTNER ZONE
LENGTH: 903 words
Ten young film crews from ten different countries were chosen as winners in the Action4Climate documentary competition. Their outstanding and unique films inspire the world to take action on climate change.
"These talented young film makers connect to their audience in emotional and powerful ways about the dangers of climate change. They have done serious, important work, which shows that climate change could result in a world that is unrecognisable today, and that we need act now to protect the planet for future generations." Jim Yong Kim, president, World Bank Group.
The Action4Climate competition was launched in early 2014 by Connect4Climate, the global climate change communications programme. It attracted hundreds of entries from all around the world. Italian film director and screenwriter, Bernardo Bertolucci, chaired a renowned jury of filmmakers tasked with choosing winning films in two age categories.
"We were amazed by the originality of the stories and the genuine concern shown by these young film makers about the effects of climate change. They described the effects of climate change from hundreds of different points of view. Selecting winners was an almost impossible task," said Bertolucci.
In the 18-35 age category, the $15,000 top prize went to the Portuguese filmmaker Gonçalo Tocha with his provocative film The Trail of a Tale. This inspiring story revolves around a letter written in the future to society today.
Dobrin Kashavelov from Bulgaria won second place cash prizes of $10,000 with Global Warning, a harrowing film about the catastrophic effects on survivors of last year's typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines.
Third place $5,000 prize was awarded to American filmmaker Nathan Dappen for Snows of the Nile, a documentary following Nathan's adventures uncovering indisputable evidence of the fast disappearing glaciers of Uganda's mountains of the moon.
"I am immensely proud to be chosen as the winner and really hope my film helps people realize that we need to act now to protect our future," said Tocha.
In the younger 14-17 age group, The Violin Player took top spot. This beautifully animated film was the brainchild of Francina Ramos, a young Argentinian filmmaker and her co-producer Benjamin Braceras.
Second place went to Facing the Flood by Constantin Huet from Switzerland, an investigative account of the changing conditions in Greenland and the Maldives. Georgia's Tura Tegerashivili was awarded third place for the whimsical It's Easy if You Try. All prize winners receive production equipment and software to help them hone their skills and talents and inspire them to create more climate change stories.
"What an amazing honor! I am so excited. I hope The Violin Player makes people want to stand up and tackle climate change," said Ramos.
The jury is made up of filmmakers Atom Egoyan, Marc Forster, Mika Kaurismaki, Fernando Meirelles, Mira Nair, Bob Rafelson, Walter Salles, Pablo Trapero and Wim Wenders, along with film executives Rose Kuo and Cynthia Lopez, and World Bank vice president and Special Envoy for Climate Change, Rachel Kyte. They felt the standard in the competition was so high that a special prize was awarded to Balud by Panx Solajes from the Philippines, for his creative personal reflection devastating floods caused by climate change.
Connect4Climate also decided that two submissions should be recognised for their ability to present local stories that also have a profound global impact. Special Connect4Climate prizes are awarded to Tinau from UK/Kiribati producer Victoria Burns, exploring the grave concerns of small island nations such as Kiribati, and The Change, a touching portrayal of the effects on young people in a Vietnamese coastal community made by filmmakers Ha Uyen, Huong Tra, Quang Dung and Quang Phuc. A People's Choice Prize voted for by the public was won by a team from Brazil for their film Pachamama depicting the effects of global warming in Sao Paulo.
Prizes for the competition were graciously provided by Edison, the Italian power company, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. In addition, Vimeo, the video sharing website, is enthusiastically donating Vimeo Plus accounts for one year to all the finalists from developing countries.
The winners will be announced on 30 October 2014 at the Sustainia Award Ceremony in the Royal Theater, Copenhagen, celebrating the creation of new solutions for sustainable living. The general public can then see a selection of videos from winners and finallists online and on television, as well as at festivals and events.
"Connect4Climate was tremendously excited by the amount of interest shown in the competition from around the world. It demonstrates the level of concern shown by creative young people and their desire to be involved directly in exposing climate problems and finding lasting solutions. We were also gratified to experience the seamless coming together of international organizations, the private sector and civil society to support and promote the competition," said Lucia Grenna, programme manager, Connect4Climate.
It is envisaged that the high standard of the Action4Climate documentaries will help promote greater climate change awareness and inspire viewers to action.
The winning films can all be viewed at www.Action4Climate.org
Content managed and produced by Connect4Climate
LOAD-DATE: October 31, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
459 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 31, 2014 Friday 2:04 AM GMT
Direct Action is like a dodgy laundry powder that never gets the climate clean;
Australia passes new climate policy that fails to address the key problem of massive over use of fossil fuels
BYLINE: Graham Readfearn
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 698 words
Direct Action is the brand name of the freshly minted Australian Government policy to try and reduce the country's emissions of greenhouse gases.
But with a name that sounds more like a dodgy box of laundry powder, Australia's "Direct Action" is unlikely to leave the country looking any cleaner or smelling any fresher in the climate change stakes.
That's because instead of removing the many stubborn stains that fossil fuel use leaves on the planet's climate systems, Australia's box of Direct Action comes with added coal dust.
How can it be seen otherwise when in the same week that Australia's Senate passed the Direct Action legislation, the finance minister Mathias Cormann told Parliament "coal is good"?
Cormann was responding to a question from Greens Senator Larissa Waters who had pointed out that in India, coal burned in power plants was so good it was responsible for killing an estimated 80,000 to 115,000 people a year.
Cormann's immediate response to this grim statistic was to smile and say "coal is good" before going on to tout the industry's new public relations line that their product will bring prosperity to the world.
This just a couple of weeks after Prime Minister Tony Abbott told us "coal is good for humanity" and the Treasure Joe Hockey similarly spruiked the coal industry's sudden concern for the world's poor.
Direct Action?
The now passed Direct Action legislation will create a $2.5 billion pool (actually, only $1.15 billion is so far allocated in forward budget estimates for this Emissions Reduction Fund to 2017/18) to pay for projects that will lower emissions.
Companies will make bids into the cash pool for projects (examples might be soil carbon projects, efficiency measures at power stations or indigenous land management projects) and in a reverse-auction, the government will buy the cheapest emissions cuts.
The government insists this will be enough to meet the promised target of a five per cent cut in emissions by 2020 based on their levels in 2000.
Except almost every analysis carried out into the Direct Action approach to meeting the target has said it will fall well short.
The latest from analysts Reputex said for the plan to meet the target, you would need between $3.3 billion and $6 billion extra per year.
In any case, the Climate Change Authority has already said this target - regardless of the policy used to get there - is "inadequate" in an international context and should be roughly tripled.
Tripled.
Remembering too that while the repealed carbon price legislation was based on the "polluter pays" principle, Direct Action asks taxpayers to pay for companies to cut their emissions.
If major polluting companies don't want to take part in the scheme, they can just ignore it.
Was there ever a climate change policy more symbolic in its likely failure than one that could only be passed with the help of a minor political party led by a man who wants to dig 40 million tonnes of coal a year for about 30 years out of Queensland's Galilee Basin (emitting an estimated 3,291 million tonnes of CO2-e into the atmosphere in the process)?
In short, Direct Action is a climate change policy that fails to have any impact on the key drivers of climate change - namely coal and other fossil fuels.
A policy that really did act directly on the issue would look to drive the growth of renewable energy, raise ambition on targets to cut emissions and cut the amount of coal and other fossil fuels being burned (it would also cut emissions from the transport sector - Australia is a virtual policy wasteland in this area).
While the Abbott Government is delivering a policy that leaves the fossil fuel industry untouched, it carries out free advertising for coal and approves projects to expand coal extraction and exports.
Rather than rejoicing at the steady growth of renewables in the electricity sector, the government looks to castrate the policy driving the change.
The government's policy response to climate change is like trying to reduce lung cancer rates while neglecting to ask people to smoke less cigarettes.
Or, if you like, Direct Action expects you to get your washing clean with a laundry powder made from crushed up lumps of coal.
LOAD-DATE: October 31, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
460 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
October 31, 2014 Friday
Late Edition - Final
Why Republicans Keep Telling Everyone They're Not Scientists
BYLINE: By CORAL DAVENPORT
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; POLITICAL MEMO; Pg. 18
LENGTH: 1047 words
WASHINGTON -- Gov. Rick Scott of Florida, a Republican who is fighting a Democratic challenge from former Gov. Charlie Crist, was asked by The Miami Herald if he believes climate change is significantly affecting the weather. ''Well, I'm not a scientist,'' he said.
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who is locked in a tight re-election race, was asked this month by The Cincinnati Enquirer if he believes that climate change is a problem. ''I'm not a scientist,'' he said.
House Speaker John A. Boehner, when asked by reporters if climate change will play a role in the Republican agenda, came up with a now-familiar formulation. ''I'm not qualified to debate the science over climate change,'' he said.
''I'm not a scientist,'' or a close variation, has become the go-to talking point for Republicans questioned about climate change in the 2014 campaigns. In the past, many Republican candidates questioned or denied the science of climate change, but polls show that a majority of Americans accept it -- and support government policies to mitigate it -- making the Republican position increasingly challenging ahead of the 2016 presidential elections.
''It's got to be the dumbest answer I've ever heard,'' said Michael McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist who has advised House Republicans and conservative political advocacy groups on energy and climate change messaging. ''Using that logic would disqualify politicians from voting on anything. Most politicians aren't scientists, but they vote on science policy. They have opinions on Ebola, but they're not epidemiologists. They shape highway and infrastructure laws, but they're not engineers.''
Jon A. Krosnick, who conducts polls on public attitudes on climate change at Stanford, finds the phrase perplexing. ''What's odd about this 'I'm not a scientist' line is that there's nothing in the data we've seen to suggest that this helps a candidate,'' Mr. Krosnick said. ''We can't find a single state where the majority of voters are skeptical. To say, 'I'm not a scientist' is like saying, 'I'm not a parakeet.' Everyone knows that it just means, 'I'm not going to talk about this.' ''
But Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster, said that while debate moderators and editorial boards may continue to press the climate change question, the issue does not resonate with voters. He pointed to a Pew Research Center poll showing that Americans rank climate change near the bottom of policy concerns.
''It is very difficult to find an issue that voters place lower on the list than climate change,'' Mr. Ayres said. ''It vies with gay marriage and campaign finance reform as the least important issue. Most voters care about jobs, economic growth, health care and immigration.''
For now, ''I'm not a scientist'' is what one party adviser calls ''a temporary Band-Aid'' -- a way to avoid being called a climate change denier but also to sidestep a dilemma. The reality of campaigning is that a politician who acknowledges that burning coal and oil contributes to global warming must offer a solution, which most policy experts say should be taxing or regulating carbon pollution and increasing government spending on alternative energy. But those ideas are anathema to influential conservative donors like the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch and the advocacy group they support, Americans for Prosperity.
Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, said his group intends to aggressively work against Republicans who support a carbon tax or regulations in the 2016 presidential primary campaigns. ''They would be at a severe disadvantage in the Republican nomination process,'' Mr. Phillips said. ''We would absolutely make that a crucial issue.''
In the meantime, climate change has come up this year in at least 10 debates in Senate and governor's races -- including those in Florida, New Hampshire, Colorado, Iowa and Kentucky -- forcing Republicans to respond to a growing number of questions about the issue. In 2012, President Obama and Mitt Romney never once mentioned climate change in their three debates.
All the Republican presidential candidates that year but one -- Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the former governor of Utah -- questioned or denied human-caused climate change. Republican strategists at the time saw that position as essential to winning support from the conservative base and inconsequential in influencing swing voters in the general election.
Since then polls show that the political landscape has changed. A 2013 survey by USA Today and Stanford University found that 71 percent of Americans say they are already seeing the results of climate change, and 55 percent support limiting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Mr. Krosnick, a professor at Stanford University, analyzed polls in 46 states conducted between 2006 and 2013 and found that in every state surveyed, at least 75 percent of the population acknowledged the existence of climate change, and at least 67 percent said the government should limit greenhouse gas emissions.
One result is that a cadre of Republican staffers and advisers, most under the age of 40, have started pushing their bosses to find a way to address the issue.
''The general dialogue has been, 'We have to do something about this,' '' said one Republican adviser who asked to remain anonymous in order to speak candidly. ''We have to be less head-in-the-sand and acknowledge we are losing public opinion on this issue.''
While the politicians debate, the scientific evidence linking weather extremes to climate change continues to mount. Earlier this year, the National Climate Assessment, a study by 13 federal agencies, detailed the ways in which climate change caused by burning coal and oil is threatening the American landscape, from rising sea levels in Florida to more wildfires in Colorado to more devastating droughts across the Southwest. Major corporations, including longtime Republican donors like ExxonMobil, Walmart and Coca-Cola, have acknowledged the science of human-caused climate change and are planning for future taxes or regulations on carbon pollution.
For Mr. McKenna, the energy lobbyist and Republican adviser, the political future is clear. ''We're going to keep getting this question until we nail down a hard answer,'' he said.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/us/why-republicans-keep-telling-everyone-theyre-not-scientists.html
LOAD-DATE: October 31, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Gov. Rick Scott of Florida turns to a now-familiar phrase when asked about climate change. (PHOTOGRAPH BY CHARLES OMMANNEY FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
461 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 30, 2014 Thursday 7:15 PM GMT
Nigerian recycling initiative proves it's not all about hi-tech solutions;
Winner of the Sustainia Award 2014, Wecyclers enables low-income communities to make money from waste and while it's a low-tech innovation, its impact is high
BYLINE: Laura Storm
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 730 words
When it comes to climate change, we have the bad habit of focusing on the first part of the story, the part about the problem, and forgetting the second part about the many available solutions. These solutions are speeding up recycling, slowing down emissions and providing sustainable alternatives to plastic, air conditioning, smartphones and fast fashion.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is gathered in Copenhagen to present its latest report on the impacts and pace of climate change. Due for release on 2 November, we know the highlights of the report's message already. Climate change is now measured on all continents and our efforts to lower emissions must be intensified to avoid it escalating out of control. Along with outlining the risks and challenges, Copenhagen must also embrace and focus on the solutions.
In the spirit of focusing on what can be done, Sustainia Award, chaired by Arnold Schwarzenegger, tonight celebrated 10 leading sustainability solutions deployed in 84 countries. From food, fashion, energy, transportation, education and health, the awards showcased an alternative to the grim future scenarios we are so often presented with and made sustainability tangible to the innovators, investors, consumers and policy makers across sectors and regions.
From California, we saw how we can now produce plastics from greenhouse gases that are competitive with normal oil-based plastics in price and quality. From Switzerland, we learned how we can recycle and reuse old clothes and shoes more effectively in a recycle system currently deployed in over 60 countries. And from Canada, we learned how smartphones can make bike-sharing more convenient.
The 10 projects presented each offered unique solutions to sustainability challenges, but it was the Nigerian initiative Wecyclers that had Arnold Schwarzenegger and the rest of jury's vote and took the Sustainia Award 2014.
Wecyclers enables low-income communities to make money on waste piling up in their streets. By deploying a fleet of cargo bicycles to collect and recycle unmanaged waste in Nigeria's capital Lagos, Wecyclers lets families exchange garbage for consumer goods via an SMS-based point system.
Recycling companies purchase Wecyclers' sorted waste for reprocessing for products as mattresses, pillows and trash bags. Wecyclers is a response to local waste issues, where it's estimated that only 40% of the city's rubbish is collected. According to the World Bank only 46% of municipal solid waste in Africa is collected. More than 5,000 households have signed up so far and there are plans to extend the initiative to other cities throughout Nigeria.
Solutions to combat climate change are often perceived as hi-tech innovations focused on cutting emissions, creating infrastructure or efficiency. However, to successfully solve the variety of challenges, we need variety in our solutions as well. Sustainability is not solely a matter of bringing down emissions, it is also a question of using our natural resources more intelligently and creating healthier lives for ourselves. Initiatives might be low-tech in innovation, but high-impact when it comes to create sustainable change for entire communities.
With a wide range of solutions addressing the equally wide range of challenges, we must focus more on the important part of the story that creates enthusiasm, momentum and spur action for the much-needed change.
Laura Storm is executive director at Sustainia
Read more stories like this:
Energy efficient air conditioning is within sight
Personalising climate change through open data and apps
From fashion to transport: businesses are leading on sustainable innovation
The technology and innovation hub is funded by BT. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled advertisement feature. Find out more here .
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: November 5, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
462 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 30, 2014 Thursday 5:25 PM GMT
How Interstellar made Michael Caine think again about climate change;
Mother nature's going to be fine - but we might not be, adds Matthew McConaughey, star of film that addresses humans' place in the cosmos
BYLINE: Catherine Shoard
SECTION: FILM
LENGTH: 772 words
In Christopher Nolan 's new movie, humanity's hope for survival is pinned on one man: Matthew McConaughey, pilot of a last-ditch mission to find humans a new home as Earth becomes uninhabitable. And in turn, Interstellar, which opens worldwide on 7 November, heads towards cinemas heavy with expectations.
In a year strikingly light on both critical and commercial hits, it's down to this three-hour Imax epic to save cinema as the clock ticks on the last quarter. Nolan has millions of devoted fans from his Batman trilogy, plus the rare clout to get studio backing for adult blockbusters which don't feature superheroes. Early screenings have attracted very warm reviews, Oscar buzz and comparisons to Kubrick's 2001, whose extended deep space sequences Nolan appears to ape.
Yet at a press conference in London on Wednesday, Nolan said his key inspiration was films such as Close Encounters of a Third Kind, which sought to speculate about a moment when humans would need to reassess their place in the cosmos.
Interstellar does so from a post-climate change perspective. It shows a world decimated by a man-made agricultural blight that forces other options to be scoped out. Rather than being a call to arms to preserve the planet, it fast-forwards to a time when any such battle has been lost.
"It has as a jumping-off point not that we're meant to save the earth, we're meant to leave it," said Nolan. "Obviously, if that's taken literally it would not be particularly positive. The film feeds off certain concerns that are very valid in the world today. But really it's about saying what is mankind's place in the universe? I think it's very exciting to deal with that dramatically and I think it's important we have to deal with that out of necessity. In real life, it would be far better if we dealt with that issue out of choice."
McConaughey's character is mentored by a man played by Michael Caine and loosely based on the astrophysicist Kip Thorne. Thorne's work both inspired and informed the film, but Caine, 81, said that until he spoke with the scientist, the only wormholes he'd been familiar with were those in his garden.
Caine, who has now worked with Nolan six times, said his own re-evaluation of the reality of climate change coincided with his making the film. "When I went to do this movie in LA two years ago I left on 2 October. It was 86 degrees here and when I got to Los Angeles it was pouring with rain. That is the exact opposite of what it's supposed to be. That worried me. I'd never believed in global warming and I went: 'Whoops. Maybe there is something in it.'"
Asked if he was taking measures to try reduce his own ecological footprint, Caine jokingly protested that he was still making up for a frugal youth. "I was so poor for so long. I didn't use anything or eat very much so I figured the world owed me a debt. Now I've been eating very well and have had a big car for a long time."
His fellow cast-members banged the ecological drum a little harder, with vegan Jessica Chastain championing "meat-free Mondays" and Anne Hathaway saying she timed her showers and tried to support small, ethical businesses. Nolan, meanwhile, expressed enthusiasm for pooling resources, "gathering people in one place, like a movie theatre - you can save an enormous amount of electricity".
Interstellar suggests the survival of the species may depend on enough people extending a sense of empathy beyond their immediate family. It acts as a tribute to those adventurers of the past who were able to sideline short-termism in the service of exploration. But the cast agreed what would be needed to prevent such action from becoming necessary in the first place was a rapid and concerted effort.
"I think mother nature's gonna be just fine," said McConaughey. "But we might not. The masses have to have a personal stake in things to take action."
Hathaway pointed to societal structures as a cause of such inertia. "I don't think we've learned how to broach with the topic with your average person that your life is being controlled by a small group of people who are themselves controlled by greed."
Both actors, as well as Chastain and Nolan, reported that they nonetheless remained optimistic, and had faith in the sentiment of the film's tagline: "The end of Earth will not be the end of us."
Caine, however, remained sceptical. "If Earth screws up, I think we all go," he said. "How many people can go through a black hole in a rocket? It's not a bus."
· Review: A night out with Michael Caine
This article was amended on 30 October 2014 to correct the spelling of "decimated"
LOAD-DATE: November 5, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
463 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 30, 2014 Thursday 1:59 PM GMT
Eight foods you're about to lose due to climate change;
As worsening drought and extreme weather devastate crops, you may begin seeing global warming when you open your fridge
BYLINE: Twilight Greenaway
SECTION: VITAL SIGNS
LENGTH: 1539 words
What does climate change taste like?
It's an odd question, but an increasingly pertinent one. After all, as temperatures rise and extreme weather becomes the norm, many food production systems are becoming threatened. As that trend increases, it's worth asking which foods consumers will have to cut back on - or abandon entirely.
According to David Lobell,deputy director of the Center on Food Security and the Environment at Stanford University, "The general story is that agriculture is sensitive. It's not the end of the world; but it will be a big enough deal to be worth our concern."
One major issue is carbon dioxide, or CO2. Plants use the gas to fuel photosynthesis, a fact that has led some analysts to argue that an increase CO2 is a good thing for farming. Lobell disagrees, noting that CO2 is only one of many factors in agriculture. "There's a point at which adding more and more CO2 doesn't help," he says. Other factors - like the availability of water, the increasing occurrence of high and low temperature swings and the impact of stress on plant health - may outweigh the benefits of a CO2 boost.
Lobell has already noticed the effect of climate change on some crops. For example, he says, yield data from corn and wheat production suggests that these two staples are already being negatively affected by the changing climate. Similarly, fruit and nuts are also showing the impact of climate change. Fruit trees require " chilling hours ", or time in cold, wintry environments, for optimum production. If they don't hit their required number of cold, wintery days, their production - and quality - drop. These reduced yields, Lobell explains, lead to more frequent price spikes in many foods.
Here's a list of the foods to enjoy now - while they're comparatively plentiful.
Corn (and the animals that eat it)
Water shortages and warmer temperatures are bad news for corn: in fact, a global rise in temperatures of just 1C (1.8F) would slow the rate of growth by 7%. The impact of a disruption in corn production would extend far beyond the produce section at the supermarket. A great deal of US corn goes to feed livestock, so lower corn yields could mean higher meat prices, and fewer servings of meat per capita.
This isn't merely speculation: Lobell claims that changes to this $1.7tn industry have already begun. According to a recent study (subscription required) that he co-authored, the world's farmers have been much less productive in recent years than they would have were it not for climate change. Global corn production, in particular, has already been nearly 4% lower than it would have been if the climate were not warming.
Coffee
Higher-than-average temperatures and shifting weather patterns in the tropics have made " coffee rust " fungus and invasive species the new norm on coffee plantations. And, to make things worse, a severe drought in Brazil this spring caused prices to skyrocket. Some analysts are predicting that, if the current trends continue, Latin American coffee production could relocate to Asia.
Latin America isn't the only coffee-producing region facing the impacts of shifting weather patterns. In Africa, the number of regions suitable for growing coffee is predicted to fall anywhere from 65% to 100% as the climate warms. In this case, higher temperatures would produce lower yields and plant.
Chocolate
According to a widely cited 2011 study (pdf) from the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), cacao beans - the raw ingredient in chocolate - will become much less plentiful over the next few decades. The main problem is rising temperatures and falling water supplies: in the African nations of Ghana and Cote d'Ivoire, temperatures are predicted to rise by at least 2C by 2050. This, in turn, will increase "evapotranspiration" in the cocoa trees, causing them to lose more water to the air and reducing their yield.
Andrew Jarvis, Leader of the Decision and Policy Analysis Program at CIAT, says that, while chocolate and coffee are not crucial to our survival, studying the impact of climate change on them makes sense, because they can help raise awareness about climate change by "hitting people's soft spots."
"Imagine waking up and not having coffee to get you through the morning, or not having a bar of chocolate readily available when you get a craving," he says. "It's not that there won't be any, but the prices will likely be much higher. Both these crops are very sensitive to climate change, and increases in demand are outstripping our capacity to supply."
Seafood
In addition to its impacts on land, climate change can also contribute to rising levels of CO2 in the ocean. This, in turn, leads to ocean acidification, which could threaten a whole range of edible ocean creatures. For example, the shells of young oysters and other calcifying organisms are likely to grow less and less sturdy over time, as the oceans' acidity increases. The UK's chief scientist, Sir Mark Walport, recently announced that, thanks to man-made CO2, the acidity of the oceans has increased by about 25% since the start of the industrial revolution.
Another problem is that, according to a recent study, most fish are slow to adapt to acidification, leading to a risk of species collapse. Some animals, like tropical fish and lobsters, are moving north in search of cooler habitats, but this migration causes other problems. Tropical fish, for example, are more susceptible to parasites in warmer water, further weakening their species. Meanwhile, lobsters tend to eat everything in sight, so their move puts the native habitats of a host of other species at risk.
Maple syrup
Wetter winters and drier summers are putting more stress on sugar maples, the trees whose sap is needed to produce maple syrup. In the winter, the trees need freezing temperatures to fuel the expansion and contraction process that they use to produce the necessary sap. Rising temperatures are already causing sap to flow earlier: according to some estimates, this may push up maple production by up to a monthby the end of the next century.
The US Department of Agriculture also predicts that the industry will move north, as the trees in cooler areas fair better, and maple trees in states such as Pennsylvania are less likely to survive the shift. The USDA Forest Service has developed the Climate Change Tree Atlas, which shows that sugar maples will likely loose some habitat. "While maple trees won't necessarily vanish from the landscape," says the federal agency, but "there could be fewer trees that are more stressed, further reducing maple syrup availability."
Beans
Beans feed the majority of the population in Latin America and much of Africa, but the hearty legumes might be quailing in the face of climate change. According to a report from CIAT, higher temperatures affect flowering and seed production in bean vines, reducing yields by as much as 25%. And in bean-growing regions, too much rain - in the form of storms and floods - will likely destroy some crops as well.
"Beans are very sensitive to climate," says CIAT's Jarvis, noting that their need for low temperatures helps explain why they do well in the mountainous regions of East Africa. "High temperatures, especially at night, can significantly affect the productivity of the crop."
Cherries
Stone fruits, particularly cherries, require chill hours to bear fruit; too few cold nights, and the trees are less likely to achieve successful pollination. On the west coast, where the bulk of sweet cherries are grown, rising temperatures mean that trees might flower later and produce fewer fruits.
Unusually timed cold weather can be just as disastrous. In 2012, the Michigan cherry industry lost 90% of its tart cherry crop after a late freeze.
Wine grapes
Thanks to warmer temperatures, wine grapes will likely soon be in higher demand - making wine more expensive . A 2013 study predicted that "major global geographic shifts" among wine growers - as well as fluctuations in temperature and moisture levels in Europe, Australia, North American, and South Africa - will essentially make the perfect wine grape a moving target. Australia will probably be hit the hardest, as 73% of the land there could be unsuitable for growing grapes by 2050. California's loss is nearly as high at 70%.
Then there's the question of "terroir", or flavor based on geographical location. Wine grapes like heat, but not too much. In extreme temperatures, they can even go into a kind of thermal shock that can severely alter flavor. On the bright side, the grapes also retain more sugar in these circumstances, making the final product higher in alcohol, so the casual sipper won't need to drink as much to feel the effects.
Twilight Greenaway is a writer and editor who focuses on food and sustainability. She is managing editor of Civil Eats
The Vital Signs platform is funded by Avery Dennison, Domtar and Chiquita. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled advertisement feature. Find out more here.
LOAD-DATE: November 5, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
464 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 30, 2014 Thursday 11:43 AM GMT
Regreening program to restore one-sixth of Ethiopia's land;
Tree and shrub-planting program has transformed degraded and deforested land across Africa, with Ethiopia planning to restore a further 15m hectares by 2030
BYLINE: John Vidal
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 939 words
Fifteen years years ago the villages around Abrha Weatsbha in northern Ethiopia were on the point of being abandoned. The hillsides were barren, the communities, plagued by floods and droughts, needed constant food aid, and the soil was being washed away.
Today, Abrha Weatsbha in the Tigray region is unrecognisable and an environmental catastrophe has been averted following the planting of many millions of tree and bush seedlings. Wells that were dry have been recharged, the soil is in better shape, fruit trees grow in the valleys and the hillsides are green again.
The "regreening" of the area, achieved in just a few years for little cost by farming communities working together to close off large areas to animals, save water and replant trees, is now to be replicated across one sixth of Ethiopia - an area the size of England and Wales. The most ambitious attempt yet to reduce soil erosion, increase food security and adapt to climate change is expected to vastly increase the amount of food grown in one of the most drought- and famine-prone areas of the world.
"Large areas of Ethiopia and the Sahel were devastated by successive droughts and overgrazing by animals in the 1960s and 1970s," says Chris Reij, a consultant with the World Resources Institute in Washington.
"There was a significant drop in rainfall, people had to extend the land they cultivated and this led to massive destruction and an environmental crisis across the Sahel. But the experience of Tigray, where over 224,000 hectares of land has now been restored shows that recovery of vegetation in dryland areas can be very fast. Tigray is now much more food secure than it was 10 years ago. You really see the changes there," he says.
Rather than just plant trees, which is notoriously unreliable and expensive in dry land areas, the farmers have turned to "agro-ecology", a way to combine crops and trees on the same pieces of land.
In Tigray it has involved communities building miles of terraces and low walls, or bunds, to hold back rainwater from slopes, the closure of large areas of bare land to allow natural regeneration of trees and vegetation, and the widespread planting of seedlings.
"The scale of restoration of degraded land in Tigray is possibly unmatched anywhere else in the world. The people... may have moved more earth and stone [in recent years] to reshape the surface of their land than the Egyptians during thousands of years to build the pyramids," says Reij.
"In the early 1990s every able-bodied villager in Tigray had to contribute three months of labour to dig pits to save water, or to construct terraces and bunds to stop water rushing off the hills. This was reduced later to 40 days a year and currently it is 20 days a year.
"Several hundred thousand hectares are now under 'exclosures' - degraded areas in which no cutting and grazing is permitted. This allows the natural regeneration of vegetation. Tens of thousands of kilometres of rock bunds and terraces have been constructed, often on steep slopes," he added.
Ethiopia's pledge to restore a further 15m hectares of degraded land was the largest of many made at the end of UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon's New York climate summit last month, where governments, companies and civil society groups together agreed to try to restore 350m hectares of deforested landscapes - an area the size of India - by 2030.
Commitments have now come from Uganda (2.5m hectares), Democratic Republic of the Congo (8m hectares), Colombia (1m hectares), Guatemala (1.2m hectares), and Chile (100,000 hectares). Many others are expected to follow in the run-up to the Paris climate talks in December 2015 because the restoration of degraded land is expected to qualify for carbon credits.
Africa, with help from the World Bank, the UK government and development groups like Oxfam and World Vision, has emerged as the leader in restoring the world's estimated 2bn hectares of degraded lands.
According to Reij, a quiet revolution has seen over 200m trees planted and 5m hectares of degraded land regreened in Niger. The result, says a report by the International Food policy research institute, has been extra 500,000 tonnes of food grown in the country with the fastest growing population in the world, as well as an increase in biodiversity and incomes.
In Burkina Faso where 2-300,000 hectares of land has been regreened, food production has grown about 80,000 tons a year - enough to feed an extra 500,000 people.
"There are a lot of inspirational examples in Africa. In Tanzania 500,000 hectares of land has been restored. What this shows is that well-managed ecosystems are good for biodiversity as well as for food security, water supplies and climate change," said Stewart Maginnis, director of International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) nature-based solutions group in Geneva.
Increasing the rate of restoration of degraded lands will be vital both for feeding fast-growing populations and adapting to climate change, says Green Belt Movement (GBM) international director, Pauline Kamau.
"Africa is already experiencing some of the most dramatic extreme temperature events ever seen. Without action to reduce emissions, average annual temperatures on the continent are likely to rise 3-4C by the end of the century and [there could be] a 30% reduction in rainfall in sub Saharan Africa.
"We know that regreening could be a key part of the solution to these problems. Agriculture, forestry and other land use changes accounts for nearly 25% of greenhouse gas emissions globally. Restoring degraded lands can both help rein in warming and adapt to higher temperatures," she said.
LOAD-DATE: November 5, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
465 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 30, 2014 Thursday 1:37 AM GMT
Direct Action is here. Now Tony Abbott can finally move on from doomed tribalism;
There are really two debates on climate change: one on action, the other on the semantics of carbon pricing. Both have been resolved, albeit in an unfortunate way
BYLINE: John Quiggin
SECTION: COMMENT IS FREE
LENGTH: 665 words
As an economic researcher, most of my work focuses on uncertainty. In particular, I study the problem of unforeseen contingencies, or, in ordinary language, surprises.
As a researcher on climate change and member of the Climate Change Authority, easily the biggest surprise of this year for me was the appearance of Clive Palmer and Al Gore, jointly discussing the problem of climate change.
After that shock, yesterday's press conference seemed like part of the " new normal ". Featuring Palmer, environment minister Greg Hunt and Bernie Fraser, chairman of the CCA, the government's Direct Action plan was agreed to and yet another study into the possibility of an Emissions Trading Scheme announced.
To understand what is going on here, it is necessary to observe that there are really two separate debates about climate policy.
The first, substantive, debate is whether we should be acting to stabilise the global climate in line with our shared global commitment to limit warming to 2 degrees celsius. Any serious action along these lines must involve an implicit or explicit price on carbon dioxide emissions.
The opponents of action fit into two groups, both strongly represented in the government's support base. The first are interest groups associated with fossil fuels, and particularly coal, for whom effective mitigation (in the absence of a so-far nonexistent technology for carbon capture and storage on a large scale) represents an existential threat far more immediate than the destruction of most planetary ecosystems over the next century.
The other group are rightwing tribalists who oppose climate mitigation because groups they hate (environmentalists and scientists) support it. These tribalists claim to be "sceptics" about the science of climate change. In reality, their position bears no relationship to scepticism or to any kind of evidence-based belief. Rather it is the dogmatic restatement of a tribal shibboleth, similar to creationism, trutherism and birtherism.
These groups saw the election of the Abbott government as a vindication, but it has become clear that they represent a minority viewpoint. The coincidental (though predictable in the long term) occurrence of record-breaking heatwaves has further undermined them.
The second dispute, entirely semantic but nonetheless bitter and politically consequential is about the words used to describe the carbon price and the design of policies that can be made to fit these words.
Because of its history, tangled with the prime ministerial career of Julia Gillard, the term "carbon tax" is politically toxic, particularly to the LNP. On the other hand, subsidy schemes like Labor's carbon farming initiative, which provides the model for the government's emission reduction fund (aka direct action) are seen as acceptable.
Yet in economic terms, a subsidy for not doing something has the same effects as a tax on doing it. The main difference is that it is much easier to determine that someone is emitting CO2 and tax them, than to determine that they are emitting less than they would otherwise do, and paying a subsidy.
An emissions trading scheme also places a price on carbon emissions. In this case, however, the government determines the volume of emissions that will be allowed, and market trade determines the price. The main advantage of an ETS over other ways of implementing a carbon price is that it facilitates international trade, meaning that Australia can take advantage of low-cost emissions opportunities overseas, to allow more time for the difficult task of decarbonising our own economy.
Hopefully, having ended the carbon tax, and having been forced to accept the idea of an ETS, at least as a subject of study, the Abbott government will be in a position to move on both from the doomed denialism of the rightwing tribalists and the semantics of the carbon price, and return Australia to the mainstream of global policy on climate change. The upcoming G20 meeting would be a great opportunity.
LOAD-DATE: November 5, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
466 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
October 30, 2014 Thursday
The New York Times on the Web
Climate Change Concerns Push Chile to Forefront of Carbon Tax Movement
BYLINE: By KATE GALBRAITH
SECTION: Section ; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; GREEN COLUMN; Pg.
LENGTH: 1028 words
SAN FRANCISCO -- These are rough times for carbon taxes, aimed at mitigating climate change. Australia recently repealed its carbon tax. South Korea delayed a carbon-based tax on vehicle emissions. South Africa put off a planned carbon tax until 2016.
And yet, for environmentalists, a sliver of hope exists in the shape of Chile, one of Latin America's fastest-growing economies, which last month approved the first carbon tax in South America. The measure, due to take effect in 2018, was part of a broad overhaul of the tax system.
''Chile is one of the countries that is getting much more serious about climate change, and developing something that's much more robust in terms of policies,'' said Miguel Pinedo-Vasquez, a forest ecologist at Columbia University.
Chile's tax, which targets large factories and the electricity sector, will cover about 55 percent of the nation's carbon emissions, according to Juan-Pablo Montero, a professor of economics at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, who informally advised the government in favor of the tax. At $5 per metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted, Chile's tax is lower than the $8-per-metric-ton carbon price in the European Union's carbon-trading system, which has often been criticized as too lax. But it is higher than a carbon tax introduced in Mexico in January.
''We all understand we need to go way beyond the $5 mark'' in order to really reduce carbon emissions, Dr. Montero said. However, he added, ''I think this still allows you to start building the institutions that you need in the future, when you start moving forward toward more ambitious goals.''
Chile's carbon tax was prompted by concerns about climate change, which is already expanding the nation's deserts, according to Jorge Valverde Carbonell, an under secretary adviser in the Chilean Ministry of Finance. Asked if the tax could eventually be increased, Mr. Valverdesaid it was possible. However, he added that Chile's contribution to the world's greenhouse gas problem is small, and that countries that produce more emissions should take the lead.
Some warn that the tax will hurt Chile's economy, including the energy-intensive mining sector, because electricity prices are already high and because few other nations are taxing carbon emissions. The tax ''definitely reduces the competitiveness of our industry,'' said Luis Felipe Arze, a partner at Carey & Allende, a Santiago-based law firm, who represents a spectrum of energy-related clients.
The carbon tax is the latest in a series of measures the Chilean government has implemented in an effort to move away from fossil fuels and encourage renewable energy sources, even as its electric power needs grow. Chile imports most of the natural gas, oil and coal that it uses but is rapidly building wind and solar farms. The nation has set a goal of getting 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025. (The figure excludes large hydropower projects, an environmentally controversial power source that provided about one-third of Chile's electricity in 2011.) What is billed as the largest solar plant in Latin America is going up in the Chilean desert.
With desert landscapes and winds generated by the Pacific Ocean and the towering Andes Mountains, ''there is no restriction of availability of solar and wind in Chile,'' said Andrés Pica Téllez, a professor in the department of industrial engineering at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile who supports the tax. However, as renewable energy projects get built, the availability of transmission lines to move power will become an issue, he said.
Chile's greenhouse gas emissions are about 7 percent of Brazil's, and 22 percent of Argentina's emissions, according to 2011 data compiled by the World Resources Institute, a nongovernmental research organization. Yet, Chile aims to reduce its emissions 20 percent by 2020, compared with 2007 levels.
''Chile has always been a forward-leaning country on environmental policy,'' said Gordon McCord, an assistant professor at the School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California, San Diego. Nations like Chile and Peru, parts of which depend heavily on snowmelt from the high mountains for drinking water and irrigation, are being forced to face the effects of climate change, he said. In recent years, drought has cut into Chile's hydroelectric production.
Chile's approval of a carbon tax owes much to its positioning inside a broader tax package, experts said. At the same time that it passed the carbon tax, the Chilean government raised corporate taxes substantially, in a bid to increase revenues for education and other projects. As a result, the carbon tax raised less debate within Chile than it might have otherwise, though electricity companies have objected.
Representatives of Endesa Chile, a large electricity-producing company, could not be reached for comment. Bernardo Matte Larraín, president of another Chilean utility, Colbún, told the Santiago newspaper La Tercera in August that while he was not against the concept of environmentally oriented taxes, they ought to be applied to a broad range of emissions sources and should not single out power generators.
Power plants of at least 50 megawatts (roughly one-tenth of the size of a typical coal plant) must pay the tax, which will not affect the transportation sector.
Mr. Valverde, of the Ministry of Finance, said that the long-term effect on Chileans' electric bills would be tiny, and that electric companies would absorb the tax in the short term.
In addition to the tax on carbon, Chile is also adopting taxes on other air pollutants, including fine particles, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, as well as a tax on some light vehicles that generate diesel exhaust. Santiago, the Chilean capital, has long struggled with pollution, due partly to its location in a dry valley.
Once the carbon tax is in place, Chile could eventually connect with other international carbon-pricing systems, Dr. Montero said. Because Chile's economy is oriented toward exports, he added, the nation will be in a good position if carbon becomes a factor in worldwide trade.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/business/international/climate-change-concerns-push-chile-to-forefront-of-carbon-tax-movement.html
LOAD-DATE: October 30, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
467 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 29, 2014 Wednesday 8:19 PM GMT
How Interstellar made Michael Caine think again about climate change;
Mother nature's going to be fine - but we might not be, adds Matthew McConaughey, star of film that addresses humans' place in the cosmos
BYLINE: Catherine Shoard
SECTION: FILM
LENGTH: 743 words
In Christopher Nolan 's new movie, humanity's hope for survival is pinned on one man: Matthew McConaughey, pilot of a last-ditch mission to find humans a new home as Earth becomes uninhabitable. And in turn, Interstellar, which opens worldwide on 7 November, heads towards cinemas heavy with expectations.
In a year strikingly light on both critical and commercial hits, it's down to this three-hour Imax epic to save cinema as the clock ticks on the last quarter. Nolan has millions of devoted fans from his Batman trilogy, plus the rare clout to get studio backing for adult blockbusters which don't feature superheroes. Early screenings have attracted very warm reviews, Oscar buzz and comparisons to Kubrick's 2001, whose extended deep space sequences Nolan appears to ape.
Yet at a press conference in London on Wednesday, Nolan said his key inspiration was films such as Close Encounters of a Third Kind, which sought to speculate about a moment when humans would need to reassess their place in the cosmos.
Interstellar does so from a post-climate change perspective. It shows a world disseminated by a man-made agricultural blight that forces other options to be scoped out. Rather than being a call to arms to preserve the planet, it fast-forwards to a time when any such battle has been lost.
"It has as a jumping-off point not that we're meant to save the earth, we're meant to leave it," said Nolan. "Obviously, if that's taken literally it would not be particularly positive. The film feeds off certain concerns that are very valid in the world today. But really it's about saying what is mankind's place in the universe? I think it's very exciting to deal with that dramatically and I think it's important we have to deal with that out of necessity. In real life, it would be far better if we dealt with that issue out of choice."
McConaughey's character is mentored by a man played by Michael Caine and loosely based on the astrophysicist Kip Thorne. Thorne's work both inspired and informed the film, but Caine, 81, said that until he spoke with the scientist, the only wormholes he'd been familiar with were those in his garden.
Caine, who has now worked with Nolan six times, said his own re-evaluation of the reality of climate change coincided with his making the film. "When I went to do this movie in LA two years ago I left on 2 October. It was 86 degrees here and when I got to Los Angeles it was pouring with rain. That is the exact opposite of what it's supposed to be. That worried me. I'd never believed in global warming and I went: 'Whoops. Maybe there is something in it.'"
Asked if he was taking measures to try reduce his own ecological footprint, Caine said that he was still making up for a frugal youth. "I was so poor for so long. I didn't use anything or eat very much so I figured the world owed me a debt. Now I've been eating very well and have had a big car for a long time."
His fellow cast-members banged the ecological drum a little harder, with vegan Jessica Chastain championing "meat-free Mondays" and Anne Hathaway saying she timed her showers and tried to support small, ethical businesses. Nolan, meanwhile, expressed enthusiasm for pooling resources, "gathering people in one place, like a movie theatre - you can save an enormous amount of electricity".
Interstellar suggests the survival of the species may depend on enough people extending a sense of empathy beyond their immediate family. It acts as a tribute to those adventurers of the past who were able to sideline short-termism in the service of exploration. But the cast agreed what would be needed to prevent such action from becoming necessary in the first place was a rapid and concerted effort.
"I think mother nature's gonna be just fine," said McConaughey. "But we might not. The masses have to have a personal stake in things to take action."
Hathaway pointed to societal structures as a cause of such inertia. "I don't think we've learned how to broach with the topic with your average person that your life is being controlled by a small group of people who are themselves controlled by greed."
Both actors, as well as Chastain and Nolan, reported that they nonetheless remained optimistic, and had faith in the sentiment of the film's tagline: "The end of Earth will not be the end of us."
Caine, however, remained sceptical. "If Earth screws up, I think we all go," he said. "How many people can go through a black hole in a rocket? It's not a bus."
LOAD-DATE: October 30, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
468 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 29, 2014 Wednesday 11:45 AM GMT
12 ways communities will have to adapt to handle climate change;
Whatever your water crisis, whether drought or flood, these DIY solutions will help you adjust to climate change's new reality
BYLINE: Erica Gies
SECTION: VITAL SIGNS
LENGTH: 1583 words
Climate change is making both droughts and flood more frequent and severe. Whether your area is suffering from too much water or too little, here are things you can do to adapt.
Drought
In the face of relentless droughts such as the historic one underway in California, we all want to help conserve. But with water utilities increasingly introducing tiered pricing - in which people who use more water pay an increasingly higher price for it - cutting back can reap monetary savings as well.
Replace lawns with native plants
Outdoor water use accounts for 30% of residential demand across the US, and 80% in the arid West, according to Mary Ann Dickinson, president of the Alliance for Water Efficiency. Nixing grass for drought-tolerant native plants can save as much as 10,000 gallons of water a year. Or reduce your lawn's size and replace standard grass with low-water varieties that make do with two-thirds less water.
Local native plant societies often know which plants made your lot home before you did. In the West, where most rain comes during the winter, plant natives in the fall. Natives also provide habitat for local butterflies and birds, and can be more resistant to wildfire than ornamentals.
Cut the flush
Toilets use the most water of all indoor fixtures, nearly 30% of home water use, according to the EPA. Drop-A-Brick offers an easy way to cut back. The flattened brick is filled with a powder that turns solid when it gets wet, giving it the weight needed to sink. One $15 Drop-A-Brick in a toilet's tank will displace almost half a gallon of water per flush, saving around $25 a year on water bills.
Why use a manufactured, $15 brick instead of a Lifehacker-style solution like a milk jug filled with water? It "actually improves flushing performance in most [toilets] because it causes water to accelerate more quickly through the flush valve, according to engineers," said Ali Hart, director of toilet relations for "Project: Drop-A-Brick." No more flushing twice to clear low-flow toilets!
"The real goal of this campaign," she added, "is to raise awareness about urban water conservation."
Get savvy
People tend to dramatically underestimate personal water use. One study found that Americans lowballed their water use by a factor of two. One reason is that we typically get one water bill every two months - a huge gap between use habits and measurement.
Tech companies like WaterSmart and Dropcountr are trying to reverse this trend.
Dropcountr's mobile app allows you to track how you use water, set conservation goals, access rebates for low-flow appliances and more. It also alerts you to usage trends that may land you in a higher-priced billing tier and adds a competitive factor by tracking how well you're keeping up (or rather down) with the Joneses.
Use rain barrels and graywater systems
Plants don't need drinking-quality water. Connecting rain barrels to downspouts is an inexpensive way to harvest rain to supply your garden. Such on-site water supplies increase your water security, independence, and efficiency.
Overachieving water conservers have long put a bucket in the shower or kitchen sink to collect "greywater" for plants outside. But an installed system delivering greywater from, say, your washing machine in the garage into your garden would be much easier. Such systems have long been illegal in many jurisdictions, but that's beginning to change thanks in part to groups like Greywater Action.
Opt for dual plumbing
Your toilet doesn't require drinking water, either. A dual plumbing system allows you to reroute greywater or rainwater back into your house for flushing (or use utility-delivered treated wastewater in some districts). Pipes that route non-potable water are colored purple so that everyone knows not to connect them to sinks. A diverter valve allows people to choose potable water for some needs and alternative water for the rest.
If you're buying a new house in an area where purple pipes are now in the building code, such as San Francisco, you could be on the cutting-edge of water conservation. Otherwise, save this strategy for a major remodel.
Floods
Worldwide, increasing development in floodplains is paving over soil that would otherwise soak up water. Coastal plain development is also booming, creating infrastructure that's more vulnerable than ever as sea levels rise with climate change. A World Bank report last year found that flood damage to coastal cities worldwide could reach $1tn annually.
To avoid paying your share of that, consider the following adaptations.
Location, location, location
This may be obvious, but think before you move. Whether buying or renting, consult flood maps to see if that lovely home is at high risk. If you simply must live near a coast or river, choose or build a home elevated to a height above your area's predicted flood level rise.
Raise the mechanicals and valuables
Move vulnerable elements like furnaces, water heaters and electric panels to higher ground when building or remodeling. If you have a basement, don't keep a giant plasma TV, gaming center or collection of antiquarian books down there.
Relocate
If flooded, put government emergency grants or insurance payouts toward moving to higher ground, not rebuilding. Some cities that flood regularly have used such funds to buy out willing homeowners and transform floodplains into open space. If your city doesn't offer this option, introduce it at planning meetings. After Tulsa, Oklahoma, bought and removed more than 800 flood-damaged homes and vulnerable buildings and turned the floodplain into a park, flood insurance rates dropped 25%.
Plan for soft failure
If you're already living in a flood zone, you can make your home resilient via renovations that minimize the effect of floodwater.
Choose flood damage-resistant materials such as glazed brick, concrete, stone, steel or recycled plastic lumber. Anchor the foundation to resist flotation, collapse, or lateral movement. Create "flow-through" features on the lower levels to prevent water pressure damage.
Use rain gardens and low-impact development
Permeable surfaces are your friends. Rather than paving your driveway, choose materials such as pavers that allow water to seep through them into the ground, or gravel.
Consider your lot's slope. Water should flow away from your home, not toward it. Creating a rain garden will slow runoff and allow more absorption into the ground. Add slopes that funnel water into a bioswale (a fancy name for a ditch covered in stones or native grasses), toward planting spaces or a nearby creek, or even into an underground storage catchment that can hold water for drier times, or allow water to seep slowly into the aquifer.
If you're a city-dweller with pavement right up to your house, investigate a permit to dig up part of the sidewalk and plant a small garden that will convey water underground.
Stay informed
Apps are not just for the drought-afflicted. Using real-time data from the US Geological Survey and National Weather Service, FloodWatch gives both recent and historical river heights, precipitation totals, and flood stage data throughout the United States. The app allows you to monitor nearby rivers and streams and keep an eye on potential flooding issues, giving you time to move valuables to safety.
For worldwide information check out the Flood App from Swiss Re, the leading global reinsurer. With a focus on climate change adaptation, the app offers reliable if general information on flood risks and how to manage and insure these risks.
Get flood insurance
Floods are the most common natural disaster. But flood losses are often not covered under standard renter or homeowner's insurance policies. The good news is that often you can purchase flood-specific insurance. However, some firms are leaving flood-prone areas, reasoning it's bad business to continue insuring such risky properties. If that's the case where you live, consider it a sign that you should move.
In the United States, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), administered by Fema, provides federally subsidized plans in locales that agree to implement its floodplain management ordinances. Homeowners, business owners, and renters in participating areas can purchase these plans via www.FloodSmart.gov.
Erica Gies is an independent reporter who covers water and energy for the New York Times, The Economist, Scientific American and other publications.
The Vital Signs platform is funded by Avery Dennison, Domtar and Chiquita. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled advertisement feature . Find out more here.
LOAD-DATE: October 29, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
469 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 29, 2014 Wednesday 8:16 AM GMT
block-time published-time 7.16pm AEST Night;
Environment minister Greg Hunt announces deal with Clive Palmer to pass Liberal climate change grants scheme Direct Action without an emissions trading scheme. As it happened.
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 9732 words
block-time published-time 7.16pm AEST
Night time politics summary
Clive Palmer has backed down on his insistence on an emissions trading scheme, committing to support the Coalition's Direct Action policy in return for the Climate Change Authority "investigating" an ETS for 18 months.
The foreign fighters bill passed the senate today, which declares areas no-go zones, among other things. From now on, people who travel to those areas will have to provide a legitimate reason otherwise they could face jail.
A third national security bill has been introduced to allow sharing of information between intelligence agencies and the Australian defence forces, allowing them to potentially target Australian terrorist fighters.
The higher education bill, which deregulates university fees, is being debated in the senate.
The PM is delivering his science awards tonight.
Thanks to Mike Bowers, Daniel Hurst, Lenore Taylor and Shalailah Medhora for their help and therapy throughout the day.
Good night and let flights of angels etc etc.
block-time published-time 7.03pm AEST
This is the Palmer formulation of what happened this afternoon, as spun by his media people.
Palmer Saves Emissions Trading Scheme
The Palmer United Party has successfully negotiated with the Abbott Government to consider major amendments to carbon farming, retaining the Climate Change Authority and agreeing to a three-stage, 18-month enquiry into an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
block-time published-time 6.58pm AEST
The Climate Institute has raised doubts that the government's Direct Action plan will achieve the target
We are deeply concerned that the amendments to the CFI (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill fail to establish a climate policy that gives a reasonable chance of achieving even the lowest level of Australia's 5-25 per cent 2020 target range, let along the deeper decarbonisation of the economy that will be needed beyond 2020. The Climate Change Authority has recommended Australia adopt a 2030 emission reduction target of 40-60 per cent below 2000 levels.
Without access to international carbon permits, stronger domestic regulations will be needed to meet Australia's emission goals. The 'safeguard mechanisms' in the legislation-the emission limits that companies will have to adhere to-will need to be very strong and get more stringent over time, and regulations to limit emissions and tighten energy efficiency standards across the economy will also be needed."
block-time published-time 6.40pm AEST
Alone again, naturally.
Shadow environment minister Mark Butler alone again on climate change. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
Labor's environment spokesman Mark Butler accuses Greg Hunt of performing "jedi mind tricks" on Palmer.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 6.45pm AEST
block-time published-time 6.36pm AEST
Higher education deregulation debate starts in senate
Debate over Christopher Pyne's bill to deregulate higher education fees has begun in the senate. Labor's Kim Carr says $100,000 degrees will become much more likely if the bill passes.
At this stage, Labor, Greens and Palmer United are opposing so there appears to be no prospect of it passing. It certainly won't be voted on tonight.
block-time published-time 6.21pm AEST
Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away
The shadow men: environment minister Greg Hunt, PUP leader Clive Palmer and Bernie Fraser Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
Australia's incredible shrinking climate change horizon.
block-time published-time 6.14pm AEST
Beam me up Scotty.
Bernie Fraser, head of the Climate Change Authority with environment minister Greg Hunt, PUP leader Clive Palmer. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 6.12pm AEST
Don't you worry about that.
Environment minister Greg Hunt, PUP leader Clive Palmer and Bernie Fraser on their way to a press conference. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 6.10pm AEST
Christine Milne called on Labor to stay firm on the Renewable Energy Target - at 41,000 gigawatt hours - even though industry minister Ian Macfarlane has already foreshadowed a cut of 27,000 gigawatt hours after the Warburton review. The government has said it is negotiating with Labor on the RET.
And on Al Gore :
It was a pretty wild leap of faith to stand with a coal billionaire, says Milne.
block-time published-time 6.02pm AEST
Remember the big conference with Al Gore, asks Greens leader Christine Milne. All huff and puff. Milne says the Emissions Reduction Fund, known as Direct Action, was a voluntary scheme with no modelling to prove how it would reduce emissions.
block-time published-time 5.59pm AEST
Palmer backs down on ETS and delivers Direct Action to Abbott government
Clive Palmer has done a deal with the Abbott government to support the $2.5bn Direct Action fund which uses a reverse auction to pay big polluters to reduce emissions. The Climate Change Authority will be saved, as foreshadowed earlier, and the CCA will investigate a Emissions Trading Scheme, having abolished the one due to start next year.
block-time published-time 5.48pm AEST
Isn't this a complete capitulation on the ETS?
No it's not. Hope is still alive. Just because you don't like the environment, don't take it out on me mate, says Palmer.
That's it. End of presser.
block-time published-time 5.46pm AEST
Asked if he would back down on the RET "as well", Clive Palmer says "we have made our position clear on the RET". That Palmer United wants to keep the 20% Renewable Energy Target.
Asked if Palmer will claim through the Direct Action grants using any of his companies, he says he is a full time politician now, not a director of Queensland Nickel.
Which does not really answer the question.
block-time published-time 5.40pm AEST
This is a great outcome for the government, says Hunt.
The ERF now has the prospect of being passed through the parliament shortly.
None of these things come without negotiation. That is the reality of the senate.
block-time published-time 5.38pm AEST
Greg Hunt is saying this is a great win for the government.
Which begs the question by Tony Abbott is not announcing the win. And it is not in the ministerial press conference "blue room" normally used for statements.
block-time published-time 5.36pm AEST
Lenore Taylor was the one who asked about how the government was going to get to the target to reduce emissions by 5% by 2020.
This is what the modelling, in Taylor's story, finds on the government's Direct Action policy:
The government has not modelled whether the fund has enough money to meet Australia's minimum 2020 target to reduce emissions by 5%, with Abbott saying during the election campaign he preferred to just "have a crack".
But Modelling by Reputex climate analytics, commissioned by the environment group WWF-Australia, found it was likely to fall short by $5.9bn a year between 2015 and 2020, or between $20bn and $35bn in total. Separate Modeling by Sinclair Knight Merz/MMA and Monash University's Centre of Policy Studies, commissioned by the Climate Institute, which used assumptions more generous to the Coalition, found it would need at least another $4bn. Abbott has said if Direct Action falls short he will not allocate any more money.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 6.04pm AEST
block-time published-time 5.33pm AEST
Greg Hunt says the government will achieve the drop in emissions targets because our emissions profile is dropping.
This policy is about reducing emissions by doing practical things, he says.
Q: On what basis do you calculate you will get there?
I am very committed.
block-time published-time 5.30pm AEST
So the old Labor ETS was due to start next year. That has been abolished and now the CCA will investigate another ETS, presumably to do the same thing, over the next 18 months.
Bernie Fraser hails it as:
the beginnings of an emerging broader consensus on climate change and the need to take action.
block-time published-time 5.27pm AEST
Hunt mentioned an extension of savannah burning by indigenous communities will be extended.
Fraser says "these are encouraging developments".
We will set about providing independent and balanced advice...not a sectional view.
That will be interesting.
block-time published-time 5.26pm AEST
Clive Palmer says as other countries introduce an ETS, Australia will be saddled effectively with a tariff.
He has every confidence in Bernie Fraser given his record in public service.
This is an issue where you don't want to be on the wrong side of history...this is a major step forward.
block-time published-time 5.24pm AEST
CCA will carry out an 18 month inquiry into an ETS and report back to parliament after 30 June 2016.
We think we have kept alive an ETS.
block-time published-time 5.23pm AEST
The government has agreed to extend programs on carbon farming but would be not be proceeding with Palmer's dormant Emissions Trading Scheme.
The CCA will not be abolished, as known previously.
Hunt thanks Palmer.
He's a good person to negotiate with.
block-time published-time 5.21pm AEST
Emissions Reduction Fund has secured support from Palmer for Direct Action, as reported by Lenore Taylor.
block-time published-time 5.20pm AEST
The Sandman!
Bernie Fraser, head of the Climate Change Authority is with Clive Palmer and Greg Hunt.
block-time published-time 5.16pm AEST
Five minutes to more Palmer drama.
Clive Palmer has called a press conference for 5.20pm for a room booked by environment minister Greg Hunt.
block-time published-time 5.08pm AEST
The Women in Media event, which Julie Bishop spoke to at lunch time at the National Press Club, continues on into the evening.
Liberal backbencher Kelly O'Dwyer, who was a surprising omission from the cabinet, has just tweeted this photo with Bishop, Michaela Cash and the head of Finance, Jane Halton.
Great 2 be @ launch of group for Women in Media with @JulieBishopMP@SenatorCash &Jane Halton Great pic @ellinghausenpic.twitter.com/G2rixXBb0U
- Kelly O'Dwyer (@KellyODwyer) October 29, 2014
block-time published-time 4.26pm AEST
Brandis introduces bill to track Australian terror suspects and share with defence forces
The new bill that would give intelligence agencies the power to track Australians suspected of fighting with Isis has been introduced to the senate. It also allows the information to be shared with the Australian Defence Forces, raising the question of targeting Australian terrorists.
George Brandis ' bill will give the overseas agency - the Australian Security Intelligence Service - the power to "provide assistance to the defence force in support of military operations and to cooperate with the defence force on intelligence matters."
Brandis said urgent changes were needed in light of the ADF operations in Iraq against Isis.
These activities are anticipated to include the collection of intelligence in relation to Australian persons who are known or suspected participants in the hostilities, and particularly those who are known or suspected of fighting with or alongside the IS terrorist organisation. Such intelligence is likely to prove instrumental to these operations, including in protecting ADF personnel, members of other defence forces, and civilians from death or serious harm as a result of terrorist or other hostile acts committed in the course of the conflict.
The bill also changes police control order application requirements.
block-time published-time 4.09pm AEST
The Clive Palmer-Greg Hunt deal on Direct Action is scheduled for after five now. This is senator John Madigan's take.
Yes, no, maybe, on, off who knows? Is this another PUP stunt? Ho-hum. #auspol
- John Madigan (@SenJJMadigan) October 29, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.09pm AEST
block-time published-time 4.07pm AEST
It was told more as an anecdote to prove "I feel your pain".
But it comes across more in the style of "don't you know who I am?"
It was Joe Hockey's story to highlight the pointless red tape and bureaucracy that surround many laws in all tiers of government. A lot of people get cranky about this stuff, particularly small business.
So Hockey related the following story at an event in Canberra today to highlight business compliance costs. Here is Hockey's version, as reported in Fairfax, of the night that caused him to "explode".
I took my kids to a little park up the road and there's a pizza shop there and we met up with another family ... [there were] two tables outside [with] three chairs on one table, four on the other. I went to put the two tables together and the owner of the pizza shop came out and said 'I'm sorry Mr Hockey, you're not allowed to do that, the council regulation prevents you putting the two tables together'. There were eight of us, so I went inside to get another chair and they said, 'Sorry Mr Hockey, they've said you can only have seven chairs [outside], not eight'.
I actually tracked down the mayor, it was 6 o'clock on a Friday night, and I think the whole suburb heard the conversation. I want you to know that the Treasurer of Australia feels the same pain you do ... that's what I'm trying to say.
The treasurer Joe Hockey. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 3.50pm AEST
Hello Madame Speaker.
Labor's Joel Fitzgibbon giving a personal explanation in response to agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
Personal explanations are given at the end of question time by members who claim to have been misrepresented in the argy bargy of debate. Labor's agriculture spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon got up for that very reason and again we saw the little frisson between he and the Speaker Bronwyn Bishop.
Fitzgibbon and Bishop appear to be part of a mutual admiration society, proving there is room for cross-parliamentary friendships. Though she is widely acknowledged as a tiger in the chair, Bishop always allows Fitzgibbon a little latitude. Bishop had a bit of a joke with Fitzgibbon this afternoon and in Mike Bowers' picture (above) you can see all the members reacting to the Fitzgibbon-Bishop banter.
block-time published-time 3.40pm AEST
From Penny Wong on Nova Peris :
Senator Nova Peris has my full support. There is no public interest in the publication of private correspondence today that bears no relationship whatsoever to Senator Peris' role as a parliamentarian. These media reports represent a gross invasion of Senator Peris' privacy. Australians - public figures and the wider community - deserve better.
block-time published-time 3.36pm AEST
Look out. Warren Truss gets animated.
Deputy PM Warren Truss in question time. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 3.27pm AEST
Hold the phone. Trouble in paradise. Clive Palmer has cancelled his Direct Action announcement and will reschedule.
block-time published-time 3.25pm AEST
You know those powers to track down Australian terrorist fighters in the Middle East? The bills relating to those powers will be introduced to the senate this afternoon by attorney general George Brandis.
1 - Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) - Introduction of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 2 - Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) - Introduction of the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2014.
Stay tuned.
block-time published-time 3.22pm AEST
Bill Shorten welcomes the German delegation.
Opposition leader Bill shorten greets a German parliamentary delegation. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 3.16pm AEST
Scott Morrison gets a question every day right now.
Immigration minister Scott Morrison in question time. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 3.11pm AEST
All done with question time. Clive Palmer coming up. More importantly, more excellent Mike Bowers pics...
block-time published-time 3.09pm AEST
Apropos Lenore Taylor's story earlier...
Labor to Abbott : Can the PM confirm that he's done a dirty deal with Clive Palmer to give taxpayers' money to Australia's dirtiest biggest polluters to keep polluting?
We took a policy to the election, which was to save the Australian people from the pernicious carbon tax but to tackle climate change through a Direct Action policy that would result in more trees, better soils and smarter technology. And we continue to try to secure the passage of that legislation through the Senate, says Abbott.
Clive Palmer is announcing a presser at 3.45pm.
block-time published-time 3.05pm AEST
Labor continues to hammer the petrol excise.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott arrives for question time. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
Abbott's responses are variations on a theme.
While 40 cents a week certainly is not nothing, it is rather dwarfed by the $550 a year savings which this government has given the households of Victoria through scrapping the carbon tax.
block-time published-time 2.59pm AEST
A question on the east west link in Melbourne to Jamie Briggs, infrastructure minister. This is the daily Victorian election question, designed to point out Labor in Victoria is not supporting the project.
The federal Coalition owe Victorian premier Denis Napthine after delivering a petrol tax rise in the middle of an election campaign.
block-time published-time 2.55pm AEST
Barnaby Joyce gets a question on dams.
This was the subject of the national water infrastructure round table earlier today.
Happy campers.
National water infrastructure round table in Parliament House earlier this morning, Barnaby Joyce, Warren Truss, Jamie Briggs and Greg Hunt. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 2.52pm AEST
Warren Truss government question on encouraging investment in airports.
Labor to Truss : I refer to the Deputy PM' s previous comments about fuel excise increases on 13 August 2009 and I quote, "The extra cost of fuel always flows through to increased prices on everything we buy. The Coalition recognises this in 2000 when we put a freeze on fuel excise.' Deputy PM, what's changed?
Truss's blood pressure is actually rising. He says the government has looked after the diesel fuel effects in the legislation.
The legislation that this Government will be bringing to the Parliament in relation to the fuel excise arrangements involves assurances that there will be a diesel fuel rebate paid to those entitled to it to make up for the half a cent a litre increase in excise. If the Labor Party opposes that legislation, the Labor Party. He has just indicated he will oppose it. He will deny regional Australians the excise rebate they are excited to. He will take away from regional communities our action to ensure in is no additional past cost of transport passed on to those who live outside the cities. Shame, shame, shame on Labor.
block-time published-time 2.45pm AEST
Shorten to Abbott : Does the PM agree with the executive director of the Australian Automobile Association who yesterday described his petrol tax ambush as "I think frankly it's weak, it's weak, sneaky and it's tricky.' I have to say as well I think it's also quite a gutless less move.
Tony Abbott is exhorting a Team Australia approach.
To his credit, he has been prepared to think of our nation and not just the next election when it comes to national security and I say to the Leader of the Opposition it would be better for him as well as better for our country if on economic security as well as on national security he was prepared just for once to think about our country and not just about short-term politics.
block-time published-time 2.42pm AEST
Lindsay MP Fiona Scott asks "the wonderful minister for small business" about the red tape bonfire. Shucks, from Bruce Billson.
In the area of tax more than 440,000 small businesses will benefit from changes to entry thresholds for GST and PAYG reporting. That is $63m worth of compliance savings. In areas of the Corporations Act, the silly idea that you need to appoint and retain an auditor for certain corporations that don't need to conduct an audit. These are sensible changes.
block-time published-time 2.38pm AEST
A question to Joe Hockey on the performance of the Australian economy.
Bowen to Abbott : Why should Australian motorists pay oil companies because of your ambush on petrol tax?
This thing that members opposite are complaining about is a measure that was introduced by Bob Hawke, a real Labor leader. Now, Madam Speaker, I accept that as a result of this measure the average family will pay some 40cents a week more. I accept that. And no-one wants to pay more, even if it's only 40 cents a week.
It has been a recurring theme for the government, lauding Hawke and Keating over the current Labor party.
block-time published-time 2.34pm AEST
Bowser bandit part 2.
Tim Watts hands over his visual "bowser bandit" prop after speaker Bronwyn Bishop order the attendants to collect them. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 2.33pm AEST
A government question to Christopher Pyne says there has been an "avalanche of support" for the government's higher education changes.
Chris Bowen to treasurer Hockey on the petrol tax : Does the PM agree with his finance minister that, 'If it wasn't validated by the Parliament within 12 months the money will go back to fuel manufacturers and to fuel importers who will essentially have a windfall gain.'?
Hockey quotes Bowen on Sky News this morning: 'We've had a tax review, the Henry tax review, it didn't recommend this particular change to fuel excise.'
The Henry tax review had a fuel excise in recommendation 65.
Hockey quotes the Henry tax review : "Fuel tax should apply to all fuels used in road transport on the basis of energy content and be indexed to inflation.And be indexed to inflation! Hang on!"
The Labor Party can't get their facts right. The Labor Party can't be trusted with money. The Labor Party is just hopeless.
block-time published-time 2.25pm AEST
Labor to Abbott : Did the National Party support your increased petrol tax or did you ambush the National Party just like you ambushed the Australian people, particularly those living in regional and rural Australia?
The members of the coalition all understand that we were elected with a clear mandate to fix the Budget.
Which means the National Party wasn't told.
block-time published-time 2.22pm AEST
Immigration minister Scott Morrison is talking about the Scanlon report mentioned earlier.
One of the reasons we have been so strong on our borders is because we believe in our immigration program and we want to restore confidence in that immigration program that was lost under the previous government.
block-time published-time 2.19pm AEST
Cathy McGowan to Abbott : Can you please tell the house about your vision for the regions and how will this play out in practical terms for communities and businesses that are crippled by cross-border issues in areas such as Albury-Wodonga?
Abbott gives a nod to strong regions but then goes on to talk about his plans for tax reform. Back to work, regional Australia.
block-time published-time 2.18pm AEST
Shorten to Abbott : Page 5 of the PM's repeal day report shows that on top of his $2.2bn petrol tax ambush the PM is slugging petrol stations with their very own $5.1m petrol station tax $800 on average for every petrol station every year. Why is the PM so determined to hit Australian motorists with a petrol tax whammy?
It is not paid by petrol stations but by oil companies, says Abbott. Nothing new to see here.
block-time published-time 2.13pm AEST
Bowser Bandit.
opposition taunt the PM with headline "bowser bandit" during #QT@gabriellechan@GuardianAushttp://t.co/y2N0DGZMWspic.twitter.com/OELFPX8AuE
- Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) October 29, 2014
Speaker Bishop instructed the attendants to collect the unparliamentary props.
block-time published-time 2.12pm AEST
Government question to Julie Bishop : Will the minister please outline to the House what measures the Government is taking to protect our youth from extremism?
block-time published-time 2.10pm AEST
Labor to Abbott : Because poor people don't drive cars, as the treasurer said, they won't feel the petrol tax?
The treasurer has dealt with that matter and I have dealt with that matter. Obviously I stand by my words and the treasurer stands by the explanation and the apology he gave at the time.
block-time published-time 2.08pm AEST
Deal done on Direct Action
Lenore Taylor reports :
The Coalition's $2.5bn "Direct Action" climate policy appears likely to pass the Senate after the environment minister, Greg Hunt, agreed to minor amendments, but doubts remain about whether it can achieve Australia's 2020 emission reduction target and pave the way for deeper long-term cuts.
The government has agreed to independent senator Nick Xenophon's demand it move quickly to set up a "safeguards" scheme to impose penalties on companies that increase their greenhouse emissions - but has not committed to any detail.
It has rejected Xenophon's push to allow the government purchase international carbon permits, something the prime minister once described as sending "money ... offshore into dodgy carbon farms in Equatorial Guinea and Kazakhstan", even though this would have made it easier and cheaper to reach Australia's agreed emissions reduction target.
The government also agreed to get the Climate Change Authority - which it was once committed to abolish - to investigate the Palmer United party's idea of a dormant emissions trading scheme, which would be activated when major trading parties had equivalent policies - with the CCA to report to the parliament.
block-time published-time 2.07pm AEST
Abbott says "of course not" - no deal done with the Greens on support for the petrol tax.
Think of the country for once, says Abbott.
First government question is on national security laws.
block-time published-time 2.04pm AEST
Parliament is particularly rowdy this morning. Shorten has to withdraw the Bowser Bandit. Labor backbenchers hold up the Herald Sun front page with the Bowser Bandit headline.
Labor MPs Nick Champion and Terri Butler thrown out.
block-time published-time 2.01pm AEST
Question time begins! Sound the trumpets!
My question is to the PM, affectionately known as the "Bowser Bandit'. Has the PM done a dirty deal with the Greens?
block-time published-time 1.59pm AEST
Though my attention has been drawn by the foreign fighters' bill, there was the bonfire of the banalities in the lower house this morning.
It is otherwise known as Red Tape Repeal Day and has been characterised as a bonfire of red tape, pesky, stoopid laws which get in the way of Australians lifting not leaning.
The omnibus bill repealing red tape took the morning in the house. Labor tried to amend to say this is the normal job of government and should not be made such a big deal. Like publicising your housework.
Here is some flavour of the debate by Labor's Tony Burke, contrasting red tape with the recent petrol decision.
We have today, for a full day of parliamentary sittings, a grand total of $1.8 million of savings. That is what they are here boasting about in the same week they have added $5.1 million worth of compliance costs onto motorists throughout Australia. More than double additional compliance costs have been put in place in the same week of their big repeal day that delivers only $1.8 million. And you really have to ask some questions about the $1.8 million.
The role of one of the bills we have in front of us is to change punctuation. Its role is to remove hyphens, semicolons and commas and to return commas to other places. It will correct a spelling error that was made in 1995 that the Howard government had not picked up on and we did not pick up on. The member for Kooyong has found it so we need to set aside a day to be able to deal with the additional costs associated with this!
block-time published-time 1.51pm AEST
Jacqui Lambie has released a statement with two entirely unrelated subjects.
Palmer United Senator for Tasmania Jacqui Lambie between now and 2pm will deliver a speech which details the contents of a letter she has sent today to ASIO in response to media articles citing a "confidential ASIO" document as their source.
(I think that is the Asio burqa advice story by Peter Hartcher.)
Senator Lambie will also speak about her meeting yesterday with the Russian Ambassador his Excellency Vladimir N. Morozov.
block-time published-time 1.40pm AEST
Lunchtime politics summary
The second national security bill has passed the senate without a late Labor amendment relating to the definitions of reasons for legitimate travel to declared areas.
A late government change which would give secret intelligence agencies the right to pass on the locations of Australian terrorist fighters to the defence forces, allowing the potential targeting of Australians.
Julie Bishop has questioned the usefulness of the term "feminist" and said Julia Gillard was found wanting on competence rather than punished for her gender.
The government is trying to confirm the death of a senior Australian Isis fighter, who was responsible for recruiting other Australians to the conflict in the Middle East.
The senate is expected to debate the deregulation of universities this afternoon.
block-time published-time 1.21pm AEST
Murpharoo also asked about Julia Gillard :
Just in the spirit of this occasion, I'm just interested as a woman who has achieved a significant leadership role yourself and who will go on to perhaps greater leadership roles either in politics or beyond, setting politics aside for a moment and looking back at our immediate past female Prime Minister, whether you accept that there was an element of gender in how Julia Gillard was received by the public and by the media.
Julie Bishop :
I was as delighted as the next woman who Australia had its first female Prime Minister and I said so at the time and I recognised that there was an extraordinary outpouring of good will towards Julia Gillard as our first female prime minister but then, as should be the case, she was judged on her competence and that's where she was found wanting. And, sadly, I think, for the position of prime minister, she then turned herself into a victim and portrayed herself as a victim. That was her choice but as far as I'm concerned, she was being judged on her competence, her honesty, her performance as prime minister.
block-time published-time 1.18pm AEST
My fellow blogster Katharine Murphy is on her feet.
If I can take you back to feminism briefly, and the term. It's confusing to me that women on your side of politics live the life and yet don't always embrace the term so is the lack of embrace of the term because the term historically is more associated with progressive causes than perhaps the conservative side of politics and progress? I'm just interested in try to scratch the surface a little of why you don't reject the term but you don't embrace it?
Julie Bishop:
On the first issue, Katharine, with respect, I think you're over-analysing it. It's just not a term I use. I self-describe in many other ways but not as a feminist and it's not because I have some sort of pathological dislike of the term. I just don't use it. I can't speak on behalf of my colleagues. They may or may not. It's not part of my lexicon. It just isn't. And I don't think anybody should take office of that or read anything more than that into it. I'm a female politician, I'm a female foreign minister. Yeah, well, get over it.
block-time published-time 1.15pm AEST
Here's a bit more of Julie Bishop on the glass ceiling. She has no bumps on her head apparently.
I'm often asked how I find the glass ceiling. I me, I refuse to acknowledge it. I'm not saying doesn't exist for others, I'm not saying that at all, but itis the approach I've taken in life that if I want to do something I'll work hard, set my mind to it and try to do it. If it comes off, that's great. If it doesn't come off, I'm not going to blame the fact I'm a woman for it not working. I might look at whether I was competent enough or I worked hard enough or did the breaks go my way but I'm not going to see life through the prism of gender. I can only pass on my experience and when people ask me about that, that's the answer I give.
block-time published-time 1.12pm AEST
Julie Bishop, highlighting Women In Media, is asked about feminism.
Do you think the term "feminist" is still a useful one in current debates about women's empowerment and advancement and would you describe yourself as a feminist?
It's not a term that I find particularly useful these days. I recognise the role that it has played. I certainly recognise the women's movement and the barriers that they've faced and the challenges that they had to overcome but it's not something that I describe myself as. I'm not saying I'm not a feminist,I don't reject the term, I'm just saying that it's not a way I describe myself. First and foremost I'm a parliamentarian. First and foremost I'm a minister. So I don't find the need to self-describe in that way.
block-time published-time 1.10pm AEST
Julie Bishop is asked if seeking powers to pass on the whereabouts of Australian terrorist fighters is new legal territory for the Australian defence forces.
We call it the Australian secret intelligence service because it's secret. I don't comment on intelligence matters and I don't intend to comment on the operations of our intelligence services overseas, lest it risk lives. But the new phenomenon of foreign fighters in unprecedented numbers, this concept of home-grown terrorists who have been battle-hardened in Iraq and Syria is something we all have to deal with. Now, ASIO and the Federal Police, within the domestic scenario, collect intelligence on Australian citizens.
We now have Australian citizens who are taking part in a conflict in countries 12,000km or more away and are breaking Australian laws, very serious Australian laws, so what we need to do is ensure that our intelligence agencies are able to share the necessary information so that we can detect and, if necessary, prosecute those who are breaking Australian and potentially international laws.
block-time published-time 1.04pm AEST
Foreign minister Julie Bishop said she could not confirm reports that a senior Australian Isis member had been killed in the past week.
The ABC reports :
Mohammad Ali Baryalei, the fugitive Australian terrorist accused of masterminding a plot to kill random members of the public in Sydney, is believed to have been killed in fighting in the Middle East.
Baryalei has recruited dozens of Australians onto the battlefield in Syria and Iraq.
It is understood he died four or five days ago.
Bishop said:
We are currently seeking to verify those reports so I can't confirm at this stage. It does highlight what the government has been saying, that Australians who leave this country to fight in Iraq and Syria are putting themselves in mortal danger.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.04pm AEST
block-time published-time 1.00pm AEST
As the foreign fighters bill passes, social services minister Kevin Andrews welcomed a report providing further evidence of Australia as a cohesive society.
Andrews said the findings of the Scanlon Foundation's 2014 Mapping Social Cohesion report confirmed the government's commitment to a multicultural Australia and to strengthen social cohesion.
About 2500 people were surveyed across two polls which found high levels of belonging and broad public support for multiculturalism. It found an almost unanimous (92 per cent) sense of belonging to Australia, pride in the Australian way of life (88 per cent) and that its maintenance was important (91 per cent). Support for multiculturalism remained strong, with 85 per cent of respondents agreeing that "multiculturalism has been good for Australia. Concerns over immigration were also at their lowest level since the first survey in 2007, with just 35 per cent of respondents considered the immigration intake "too high".
If you haven't read it already, David Marr has addressed this report. Here he is:
Tony Abbott's crusade against terrorism has worked a miracle. Suddenly we are less cynical of Canberra and more enthusiastic than ever about the Australian way of life. We may not have taken Abbott to our hearts, but government is having a big win. Patriotism is on the march.
block-time published-time 12.51pm AEST
Foreign fighters bill passes the senate
Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (foreign fighters) Bill 2014 passes the senate.
block-time published-time 12.48pm AEST
The vote is that the remaining stages be agreed to and the bill be passed:
Support:
Coalition, ALP PUP, Muir, Day, Madigan.
Oppose:
Greens, Leyonhjelm, Xenophon.
block-time published-time 12.46pm AEST
We are heading into the final vote on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (foreign fighters) Bill 2014.
The bells are ringing.
block-time published-time 12.44pm AEST
Greens amendment goes down with only the support of David Leyonhjelm. Everyone else opposed.
block-time published-time 12.36pm AEST
Labor has the support of the Greens and Leyonhjelm.
Government has support of Day, PUP, Muir, Madigan and Xenophon.
Labor loses amendment to give courts the powers to determine legitimate travel to declared areas in the foreign fighters bill.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.41pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.33pm AEST
George Brandis gives Wong a lecture on bringing partisan politics into the debate, saying the joint committee had worked in a collaborative and bi-partisan way as "patriots".
It wasn't the work of one side of politics, it was the work of all sides of politics.
Except the crossbenchers. It was only Labor, Liberal and National party members on the joint committee which reviewed the bill.
George Brandis damns the Labor amendment as "appalling statutory drafting".
He says we are dealing with a crime, the courts would allow an uncertainty that was not acceptable for people who would not know when they travelled, whether they were approved for travel.
Voting now on the Labor amendment.
As before, no photos are allowed.
block-time published-time 12.21pm AEST
Here are the exceptions for travel from the foreign fighters bill:
Exception-entering or remaining solely for legitimate purposes(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person enters, or remains in, the area solely for one or more of the following purposes:
(a) providing aid of a humanitarian nature ;
(b) satisfying an obligation to appear before a court or other body exercising judicial power;
(c) performing an official duty for the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory;
(d) performing an official duty for the government of a foreign country or the government of part of a foreign country (including service in the armed forces of the government of a foreign country), where that performance would not be a violation of the law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory;
(e) performing an official duty for the United Nations or an agency of the United Nations;
(f) making a news report of events in the area, where the person is working in a professional capacity as a journalist or is assisting another person working in a professional capacity as a journalist;
(g) making a bona fide visit to a family member ;
(h) any other purpose prescribed by the regulations.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in 8 subsection (3): see subsection 13.3(3).
A couple of points:
The government can prescribe another reason by regulation.
You can visit families but not friends.
Therefore, Labor is seeking to allow courts to decide what is bone fide.
block-time published-time 12.12pm AEST
Labor leader in the senate, Penny Wong is outlining Labor's broad position on the national security laws, which she says has been "strong and principled".
Wong is saying while Labor's approach has been largely bipartisan, the government had not adopted all the recommendations from the joint committee.
She has moved an amendment to the "declared areas" offence. We need to make sure Australians who are in areas for legitimate reasons are not caught up.
Labor wants to ensure that the courts can determine whether the purpose for travel is legitimate.
The current bill determines "legitimate reasons" rather than the courts.
I will deliver the list of reasons shortly.
block-time published-time 11.55am AEST
The senate is now voting on the Greens amendment to overturn no-go zones. Without the support of a major party, it will be a no-go vote.
block-time published-time 11.54am AEST
We will build dams.
National water infrastructure round table in Parliament House this morning, Barnaby Joyce addresses the room. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
Barnaby Joyce opened the national infrastructure round table talks with that statement.
block-time published-time 11.50am AEST
Penny Wright is plugging away with George Brandis in the senate, now asking about family visits. This part of the debate is a to and fro process, where senators get to quiz the minister on how the legislation works. It is actually a very enlightening process that does not happen in the lower house.
Wright says the no-go zones would have a chilling effect on people visiting family, where they take a side trip for another family event.
George Brandis says the issue here is the "sole purpose" test, where someone must be travelling solely for the reason provided to the government by the traveller. He does not think a side trip to a different place for a similar family event would be caught up.
block-time published-time 11.43am AEST
Just by-the-by, Tony Abbott has visited Questacon. The PM's science awards are on tonight. Abbott told the audience he used to take his kids to Questacon when he was a "younger parent".
block-time published-time 11.40am AEST
The senate continues to argue over the no-go zones. George Brandis is arguing there is precedence for exclusion zones because Australians already cannot visit areas like defence bases, indigenous communities and parts of the Antarctic.
Brandis says if a person is in an area when it is declared, they commit an offence by remaining there without a legitimate reason. DFAT would publicise the "declared area" in the media and online.
block-time published-time 11.27am AEST
Government seeking powers to track down Australian terrorists
Foreign minister Julie Bishop has addressed the issue in Nick Butterly's story this morning about the government seeking powers to track down and potentially allow the Australian Defence Forces to target Australian terrorist fighters.
The powers would allow Australian intelligence agencies to provide information to Australian defence forces regarding the whereabouts of Australian terrorist fighters.
Q: Would you like to prevent them from ever returning to Australia is the question?
The tragedy is that a number of them will be killed and a number of them have been killed in Iraq and Syria. We urge young Australians in particular not to be radicalised. Don't succumb to the false ideology of these poisonous organisations and we urge them not to break Australian laws by leaving this country to take up arms with ISIL. I will not go into intelligence matters or the details of what our intelligence agencies do overseas. That would put lives at risk but we're seeking an appropriate level of power and authority for our security and intelligence agencies so we can keep Australians safe. That is the primary responsibility of a Federal Government and that is what we intend to do.
block-time published-time 11.20am AEST
Greens senator Penny Wright is now speaking to the no-go zones. This is where people have to prove legitimate reasons for travelling to excluded areas otherwise they can be jailed. It particularly targets areas where Isis is fighting.
Wright says the law risks alienating the very communities which the government will need to work with to combat terrorism. She says it is a departure from rule of law principles.
This is no departure from rule of law principles, says the attorney general.
block-time published-time 11.15am AEST
This man is a senator further away from the chamber.
NSW senator Bill Heffernan arrives at the senate. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
I'll stop there.
block-time published-time 11.13am AEST
Here is a senator in football socks, also outside the chamber.
Victorian senator Stephen Conroy arriving this morning. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 11.12am AEST
These men are senators outside the chamber.
WA liberal senator Chris Back (right) and SA Family First senator Bob Day talk at the ritual called senate doors. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 11.10am AEST
Just to recap on the foreign fighters bill currently before the senate, and due to be guillotined at 12.30pm, this is Daniel Hurst's explanation of what it does:
The bill would create a new offence of advocating terrorism, toughen penalties for Australians who fight with extremist groups overseas, create new international "no-go zones" for travel without a legitimate reason, extend preventative detention and control order arrangements, and allow police to search properties secretly and notify the person about the warrant later.
It would also allow the collection of photos of millions of Australians at airports, but the bipartisan intelligence and security committee called for an amendment specifically to exclude the storage of fingerprints and iris scans.
block-time published-time 11.07am AEST
George Brandis is now amending his own bill, following the joint committee reports.
block-time published-time 11.04am AEST
Labor loses foreign fighters bill amendment
Labor loses the amendment vote. Leyonjhelm and the Greens vote with Labor.
PUP, Ricky Muir, Bob Day, Nick Xenophon, John Madigan vote with the government.
block-time published-time 11.01am AEST
This is the Labor amendment. It seeks to exempt people from the offence of "advocacy of terrorism".
Without limiting subsection (1), section 80.2C does not apply to a person who engages in good faith in public discussion of any genuine academic, artistic, scientific, political or religious matter.
block-time published-time 10.57am AEST
Now the senate is debating the Labor amendment to the foreign fighters bill. Labor wants to expand the "good faith" provision in the bill, to ensure legitimate public debate is not caught up in the offence of "advocacy of terrorism".
George Brandis says Labor's amendments are too vague, technically unnecessary and that they have the capacity to confuse a jury and "defeat the purpose" of the legislation.
Labor's Jacinta Collins says senators have a duty to get this right for our multiculturalism and urges senators to "err on the side of caution".
We are going to a vote now and we would bring you the photo but we are suddenly not allowed to photograph a division in the senate. It is allowed in the house.
block-time published-time 10.46am AEST
Der. Look up the Oxford dictionary.
Attorney-General George Brandis speaks during debate on the foreign fighters bill in the senate. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 10.44am AEST
Bill Shorten is doing a door stop on higher education, petrol taxes and other issues of the day.
Shorten notes Victorian premier Denis Napthine - who is facing an election - needs the petrol tax like "another hole in the head".
block-time published-time 10.40am AEST
The word "promotes" has its common speech meaning, says Brandis. Look no further than the Oxford English Dictionary.
We do have the separation of powers in this country, says Brandis. It's not for the parliament to set out whether a T-shirt or a word applies, we can rely upon and "trust judges and juries" to apply this "clear and statutory language" to interpret the laws.
I don't want to be tedious and repeat myself...this is about the advocacy of terrorism.
block-time published-time 10.36am AEST
Greens senator Penny Wright says there are serious questions about the term "promote" in regard to terrorism. For example, can you wear an Isis T-shirt - "not that it would be in my wardrobe".
block-time published-time 10.34am AEST
Labor's Sam Dastyari asks Brandis about what the government is doing on countering radical extremism, supporting communities which are trying to encourage young people to do the right thing.
The speed with which some people can be radicalised is exactly why we need this offence against advocacy of terrorism, says George Brandis.
Once a person has been radicalised and travelled to fight with Isil, in most cases frankly they are lost....These measures, the advocacy of terrorism, are not directed to the vulnerable young men who are the targets, they are directed to the evil old men who are the proselytisers and the predators and the advocates who seek to ensnare young men in this false and perverted and distorted view of the Islamic faith.
block-time published-time 10.24am AEST
Attorney general George Brandis is arguing to the merits of his foreign fighters bill and rejecting Penny Wright's criticism.
There's not a word in this bill that impinges upon or restricts freedom of opinion. If a person wants to express radical views, if they want to promote or proselytise a radical view of the world or a non-mainstream view of the world, they are perfectly free to do so. What they are not free to do and what they shouldn't be free to do is to advocate the commission of a terrorist act or the commission of a terrorism offence.
block-time published-time 10.09am AEST
The argument in the senate right now is about advocacy of terrorism.
But first, much of the news around this morning relates to the bill's effect on genuine news reporting. Foreign minister Julie Bishop, for example, said this morning it was not directed at journalists reporting in the public interest.
To be clear, the first tranche of national security laws - already passed - contained laws which will allow governments to jail journalists.
Independent senator Nick Xenophon is hoping to insert a public interest test in those first national security laws on special intelligence operations to allow media scrutiny of the intelligence services.
The second national security bill - currently before the house - relating to media is about advocacy of terrorism, propaganda and paid advertisements.
This is the bit in the explanatory memorandum from the bill relating to advertising:
901. New subsections 119.7(2) and (3) create offences for publishing items relevant to recruiting.
902. New subsection 119.7(2) creates an offence for intentionally publishing in Australia an advertisement or item of news that was procured by the provision or promise of money or any other consideration reckless as to the fact that the publication of the advertisement or item of news is for the purpose of recruiting persons to serve in any capacity in or with an armed force in a foreign country.
903. New subsection 119.7(3) creates an offence for intentionally publishing in Australia an advertisement or item of news that was procured by the provision or promise of money or any other consideration reckless as to the fact that the advertisement or item of news contains information relating to the place at which, or the manner in which, persons may make applications to serve, or obtain information relating to service, in any capacity in or with an armed force in a foreign country or relating to the manner in which persons may travel to a foreign country for the purpose of serving in any capacity in or with an armed force in a foreign country.
904. The maximum penalty for contravening the offences in subsections 119.7(2) and (3) is imprisonment for ten years, reflecting the relative seriousness of the conduct.
block-time published-time 9.43am AEST
Greens senator Penny Wright is straight into debate on the foreign fighters bill in the senate.
It's simply too late to ponder the consequences and in some cases to rue them once the law is passed.
block-time published-time 9.26am AEST
There have long been rumours around the parliament that there was advice on the need or wisdom of a burqa ban from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. The story was that Asio provided advice during the life of the last Labor government after senators like Cory Bernardi started agitating for it in 2010.
Peter Hartcher at Fairfax has come up with the advice in 2011 which shows a burqa ban in parliament was both unnecessary from a security point of view and counterproductive. And he reports Asio has not changed its opinion after the recent kerfuffle which saw the presiding officers put in place a temporary ban which has since been overturned.
ASIO has found there is no valid security reason to ban the burqa.
In a confidential report, the agency says the only security consequences of banning the burqa would likely be "predominately, if not wholly, negative".
The report by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, obtained by Fairfax Media, concluded: "Any move in this direction would likely have negative implications, including increased tensions and distrust between communities, and providing further fuel for extremist propaganda, recruitment, and radicalisation efforts."
This is what Asio said on the security wisdom of a ban.
The Asio assessment finds no basis for any ban on security grounds: "While the burqa can be used to conceal the identity of an individual or material carried on the body, this is also true of other items of headwear and clothing.
block-time published-time 9.11am AEST
Nick Butterly of the West Australian has an explosive story suggesting the government is seeking to target Australians fighting with Isis in the Middle East.
The Federal Government is seeking emergency powers to target and possibly kill Australian jihadists fighting overseas with radical groups such as Islamic State.
The coalition wants to give the Australian Secret Intelligence Service power to inform the Australian Defence Force about the whereabouts of Australian foreign fighters.
If approved, Australian spies could potentially pinpoint Australians fighting in Iraq, allowing RAAF jets to target them in bombing missions.
Nick reports that the government tried to include the powers in the foreign fighters bill but the senate committee wanted it properly debated in a separate bill.
The Government proposed to alter the Act governing the operation of security agencies to allow ASIS to: "Provide assistance to the Defence Force in support of military operations and to co-operate with the Defence Force on intelligence matters."
block-time published-time 8.54am AEST
Morning politics
Greetings earthlings,
On Wednesday, being hump day, there is a whole lot of news in the parliamentary sitting week.
Though I know you are all globe trotters, by the end of the day you will not be able to travel to certain areas in the world without risking jail.
Top of the parliamentary agenda is the foreign fighters bill, which while criticised by the Liberal-led human rights committee of parliament, will be waved through the senate with the help of a government gag. Nick Xenophon, David Leyonhjelm and the Greens were the dissenters, but hey, crossbenchers don't count when the majors get their heads together. This is the second national security bill and this one allows people to be jailed for travelling to no go areas for up to 10 years. There goes the visit to Aunty.
The petrol tax is still firmly implanted in the news, with finance minister Mathias Cormann defending the move as not bypassing the parliament, given the parliament will eventually have to tick it off. Motorist groups are telling drivers to keep their receipts in shoe boxes in case it does not get through. There has been a fair bit of argument in the media and amongst economists that the indexation is required to keep pace but the usual government cheerleaders such as the Institute of Public Affairs have not been kind, describing the move as "undemocratic". Bill Shorten separated the merit of the indexation of excise from the broken promise.
This is a government who didn't do any homework in opposition, they sleep walk their way to the budget, they came down with a series of measures that they hadn't argued and tested with the Australian people. Why on earth should Labor let the PM get off breaking promises? He went to the polls and got people to vote from saying that there would be no new or increased taxes. Why do you think we should just allow him to lie his way into office and then sit there and say oh well, fair enough, you're allowed to treat us all as stupid and we should just sign off on it.
There is lots more besides. By now, you may have heard the story in News Corp papers about Labor senator Nova Peris, with allegations of using funding from Athletics Australia get a fellow athlete to Australia with whom she was having an affair. More on that later.
Parliament sits at 9am, with more repeal bonfires and we can expect the higher education deregulation bill to be debated in the senate once the foreign fighters is in the can.
Follow our conversation on Twitter with me @gabrielle and my partner in crime @mpbowers. I have more of Mike's photos coming up shortly.
Palmer backs down on ETS, delivers Direct Action to Abbott - as it happened Environment minister Greg Hunt announces deal with Clive Palmer to pass Liberal climate change grants scheme Direct Action without an emissions trading scheme. As it happened. false theguardian.com true http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/10/29/1414547725847/fd1b1084-89c6-4128-ba62-cf88eb0e3660-140x84.jpeg 9123 true 450848062 false 545003d6e4b03ba8725f2b8c false Gabrielle Chan false 2183424 AUS false 2014-11-01T08:00:00+11:00
LOAD-DATE: October 29, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
470 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 29, 2014 Wednesday 7:45 AM GMT
block-time published-time 6.40pm AEST Alone;
Environment minister Greg Hunt announces deal with Clive Palmer to pass Liberal climate change grants scheme Direct Action without an emissions trading scheme. Follow the day's developments live...
SECTION: AUSTRALIA NEWS
LENGTH: 9326 words
block-time published-time 6.40pm AEST
Alone again, naturally.
Shadow environment minister Mark Butler alone again on climate change. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
Labor's environment spokesman Mark Butler accuses Greg Hunt of performing "jedi mind tricks" on Palmer.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 6.45pm AEST
block-time published-time 6.36pm AEST
Higher education deregulation debate starts in senate
Debate over Christopher Pyne's bill to deregulate higher education fees has begun in the senate. Labor's Kim Carr says $100,000 degrees will become much more likely if the bill passes.
At this stage, Labor, Greens and Palmer United are opposing so there appears to be no prospect of it passing. It certainly won't be voted on tonight.
block-time published-time 6.21pm AEST
Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away
The shadow men: environment minister Greg Hunt, PUP leader Clive Palmer and Bernie Fraser Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
Australia's incredible shrinking climate change horizon.
block-time published-time 6.14pm AEST
Beam me up Scotty.
Bernie Fraser, head of the Climate Change Authority with environment minister Greg Hunt, PUP leader Clive Palmer. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 6.12pm AEST
Don't you worry about that.
Environment minister Greg Hunt, PUP leader Clive Palmer and Bernie Fraser on their way to a press conference. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 6.10pm AEST
Christine Milne called on Labor to stay firm on the Renewable Energy Target - at 41,000 gigawatt hours - even though industry minister Ian Macfarlane has already foreshadowed a cut of 27,000 gigawatt hours after the Warburton review. The government has said it is negotiating with Labor on the RET.
And on Al Gore :
It was a pretty wild leap of faith to stand with a coal billionaire, says Milne.
block-time published-time 6.02pm AEST
Remember the big conference with Al Gore, asks Greens leader Christine Milne. All huff and puff. Milne says the Emissions Reduction Fund, known as Direct Action, was a voluntary scheme with no modelling to prove how it would reduce emissions.
block-time published-time 5.59pm AEST
Palmer backs down on ETS and delivers Direct Action to Abbott government
Clive Palmer has done a deal with the Abbott government to support the $2.5bn Direct Action fund which uses a reverse auction to pay big polluters to reduce emissions. The Climate Change Authority will be saved, as foreshadowed earlier, and the CCA will investigate a Emissions Trading Scheme, having abolished the one due to start next year.
block-time published-time 5.48pm AEST
Isn't this a complete capitulation on the ETS?
No it's not. Hope is still alive. Just because you don't like the environment, don't take it out on me mate, says Palmer.
That's it. End of presser.
block-time published-time 5.46pm AEST
Asked if he would back down on the RET "as well", Clive Palmer says "we have made our position clear on the RET". That Palmer United wants to keep the 20% Renewable Energy Target.
Asked if Palmer will claim through the Direct Action grants using any of his companies, he says he is a full time politician now, not a director of Queensland Nickel.
Which does not really answer the question.
block-time published-time 5.40pm AEST
This is a great outcome for the government, says Hunt.
The ERF now has the prospect of being passed through the parliament shortly.
None of these things come without negotiation. That is the reality of the senate.
block-time published-time 5.38pm AEST
Greg Hunt is saying this is a great win for the government.
Which begs the question by Tony Abbott is not announcing the win. And it is not in the ministerial press conference "blue room" normally used for statements.
block-time published-time 5.36pm AEST
Lenore Taylor was the one who asked about how the government was going to get to the target to reduce emissions by 5% by 2020.
This is what the modelling, in Taylor's story, finds on the government's Direct Action policy:
The government has not modelled whether the fund has enough money to meet Australia's minimum 2020 target to reduce emissions by 5%, with Abbott saying during the election campaign he preferred to just "have a crack".
But Modelling by Reputex climate analytics, commissioned by the environment group WWF-Australia, found it was likely to fall short by $5.9bn a year between 2015 and 2020, or between $20bn and $35bn in total. Separate Modeling by Sinclair Knight Merz/MMA and Monash University's Centre of Policy Studies, commissioned by the Climate Institute, which used assumptions more generous to the Coalition, found it would need at least another $4bn. Abbott has said if Direct Action falls short he will not allocate any more money.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 6.04pm AEST
block-time published-time 5.33pm AEST
Greg Hunt says the government will achieve the drop in emissions targets because our emissions profile is dropping.
This policy is about reducing emissions by doing practical things, he says.
Q: On what basis do you calculate you will get there?
I am very committed.
block-time published-time 5.30pm AEST
So the old Labor ETS was due to start next year. That has been abolished and now the CCA will investigate another ETS, presumably to do the same thing, over the next 18 months.
Bernie Fraser hails it as:
the beginnings of an emerging broader consensus on climate change and the need to take action.
block-time published-time 5.27pm AEST
Hunt mentioned an extension of savannah burning by indigenous communities will be extended.
Fraser says "these are encouraging developments".
We will set about providing independent and balanced advice...not a sectional view.
That will be interesting.
block-time published-time 5.26pm AEST
Clive Palmer says as other countries introduce an ETS, Australia will be saddled effectively with a tariff.
He has every confidence in Bernie Fraser given his record in public service.
This is an issue where you don't want to be on the wrong side of history...this is a major step forward.
block-time published-time 5.24pm AEST
CCA will carry out an 18 month inquiry into an ETS and report back to parliament after 30 June 2016.
We think we have kept alive an ETS.
block-time published-time 5.23pm AEST
The government has agreed to extend programs on carbon farming but would be not be proceeding with Palmer's dormant Emissions Trading Scheme.
The CCA will not be abolished, as known previously.
Hunt thanks Palmer.
He's a good person to negotiate with.
block-time published-time 5.21pm AEST
Emissions Reduction Fund has secured support from Palmer for Direct Action, as reported by Lenore Taylor.
block-time published-time 5.20pm AEST
The Sandman!
Bernie Fraser, head of the Climate Change Authority is with Clive Palmer and Greg Hunt.
block-time published-time 5.16pm AEST
Five minutes to more Palmer drama.
Clive Palmer has called a press conference for 5.20pm for a room booked by environment minister Greg Hunt.
block-time published-time 5.08pm AEST
The Women in Media event, which Julie Bishop spoke to at lunch time at the National Press Club, continues on into the evening.
Liberal backbencher Kelly O'Dwyer, who was a surprising omission from the cabinet, has just tweeted this photo with Bishop, Michaela Cash and the head of Finance, Jane Halton.
Great 2 be @ launch of group for Women in Media with @JulieBishopMP@SenatorCash &Jane Halton Great pic @ellinghausenpic.twitter.com/G2rixXBb0U
- Kelly O'Dwyer (@KellyODwyer) October 29, 2014
block-time published-time 4.26pm AEST
Brandis introduces bill to track Australian terror suspects and share with defence forces
The new bill that would give intelligence agencies the power to track Australians suspected of fighting with Isis has been introduced to the senate. It also allows the information to be shared with the Australian Defence Forces, raising the question of targeting Australian terrorists.
George Brandis ' bill will give the overseas agency - the Australian Security Intelligence Service - the power to "provide assistance to the defence force in support of military operations and to cooperate with the defence force on intelligence matters."
Brandis said urgent changes were needed in light of the ADF operations in Iraq against Isis.
These activities are anticipated to include the collection of intelligence in relation to Australian persons who are known or suspected participants in the hostilities, and particularly those who are known or suspected of fighting with or alongside the IS terrorist organisation. Such intelligence is likely to prove instrumental to these operations, including in protecting ADF personnel, members of other defence forces, and civilians from death or serious harm as a result of terrorist or other hostile acts committed in the course of the conflict.
The bill also changes police control order application requirements.
block-time published-time 4.09pm AEST
The Clive Palmer-Greg Hunt deal on Direct Action is scheduled for after five now. This is senator John Madigan's take.
Yes, no, maybe, on, off who knows? Is this another PUP stunt? Ho-hum. #auspol
- John Madigan (@SenJJMadigan) October 29, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 4.09pm AEST
block-time published-time 4.07pm AEST
It was told more as an anecdote to prove "I feel your pain".
But it comes across more in the style of "don't you know who I am?"
It was Joe Hockey's story to highlight the pointless red tape and bureaucracy that surround many laws in all tiers of government. A lot of people get cranky about this stuff, particularly small business.
So Hockey related the following story at an event in Canberra today to highlight business compliance costs. Here is Hockey's version, as reported in Fairfax, of the night that caused him to "explode".
I took my kids to a little park up the road and there's a pizza shop there and we met up with another family ... [there were] two tables outside [with] three chairs on one table, four on the other. I went to put the two tables together and the owner of the pizza shop came out and said 'I'm sorry Mr Hockey, you're not allowed to do that, the council regulation prevents you putting the two tables together'. There were eight of us, so I went inside to get another chair and they said, 'Sorry Mr Hockey, they've said you can only have seven chairs [outside], not eight'.
I actually tracked down the mayor, it was 6 o'clock on a Friday night, and I think the whole suburb heard the conversation. I want you to know that the Treasurer of Australia feels the same pain you do ... that's what I'm trying to say.
The treasurer Joe Hockey. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 3.50pm AEST
Hello Madame Speaker.
Labor's Joel Fitzgibbon giving a personal explanation in response to agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
Personal explanations are given at the end of question time by members who claim to have been misrepresented in the argy bargy of debate. Labor's agriculture spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon got up for that very reason and again we saw the little frisson between he and the Speaker Bronwyn Bishop.
Fitzgibbon and Bishop appear to be part of a mutual admiration society, proving there is room for cross-parliamentary friendships. Though she is widely acknowledged as a tiger in the chair, Bishop always allows Fitzgibbon a little latitude. Bishop had a bit of a joke with Fitzgibbon this afternoon and in Mike Bowers' picture (above) you can see all the members reacting to the Fitzgibbon-Bishop banter.
block-time published-time 3.40pm AEST
From Penny Wong on Nova Peris :
Senator Nova Peris has my full support. There is no public interest in the publication of private correspondence today that bears no relationship whatsoever to Senator Peris' role as a parliamentarian. These media reports represent a gross invasion of Senator Peris' privacy. Australians - public figures and the wider community - deserve better.
block-time published-time 3.36pm AEST
Look out. Warren Truss gets animated.
Deputy PM Warren Truss in question time. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 3.27pm AEST
Hold the phone. Trouble in paradise. Clive Palmer has cancelled his Direct Action announcement and will reschedule.
block-time published-time 3.25pm AEST
You know those powers to track down Australian terrorist fighters in the Middle East? The bills relating to those powers will be introduced to the senate this afternoon by attorney general George Brandis.
1 - Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) - Introduction of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 2 - Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) - Introduction of the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2014.
Stay tuned.
block-time published-time 3.22pm AEST
Bill Shorten welcomes the German delegation.
Opposition leader Bill shorten greets a German parliamentary delegation. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 3.16pm AEST
Scott Morrison gets a question every day right now.
Immigration minister Scott Morrison in question time. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 3.11pm AEST
All done with question time. Clive Palmer coming up. More importantly, more excellent Mike Bowers pics...
block-time published-time 3.09pm AEST
Apropos Lenore Taylor's story earlier...
Labor to Abbott : Can the PM confirm that he's done a dirty deal with Clive Palmer to give taxpayers' money to Australia's dirtiest biggest polluters to keep polluting?
We took a policy to the election, which was to save the Australian people from the pernicious carbon tax but to tackle climate change through a Direct Action policy that would result in more trees, better soils and smarter technology. And we continue to try to secure the passage of that legislation through the Senate, says Abbott.
Clive Palmer is announcing a presser at 3.45pm.
block-time published-time 3.05pm AEST
Labor continues to hammer the petrol excise.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott arrives for question time. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
Abbott's responses are variations on a theme.
While 40 cents a week certainly is not nothing, it is rather dwarfed by the $550 a year savings which this government has given the households of Victoria through scrapping the carbon tax.
block-time published-time 2.59pm AEST
A question on the east west link in Melbourne to Jamie Briggs, infrastructure minister. This is the daily Victorian election question, designed to point out Labor in Victoria is not supporting the project.
The federal Coalition owe Victorian premier Denis Napthine after delivering a petrol tax rise in the middle of an election campaign.
block-time published-time 2.55pm AEST
Barnaby Joyce gets a question on dams.
This was the subject of the national water infrastructure round table earlier today.
Happy campers.
National water infrastructure round table in Parliament House earlier this morning, Barnaby Joyce, Warren Truss, Jamie Briggs and Greg Hunt. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 2.52pm AEST
Warren Truss government question on encouraging investment in airports.
Labor to Truss : I refer to the Deputy PM' s previous comments about fuel excise increases on 13 August 2009 and I quote, "The extra cost of fuel always flows through to increased prices on everything we buy. The Coalition recognises this in 2000 when we put a freeze on fuel excise.' Deputy PM, what's changed?
Truss's blood pressure is actually rising. He says the government has looked after the diesel fuel effects in the legislation.
The legislation that this Government will be bringing to the Parliament in relation to the fuel excise arrangements involves assurances that there will be a diesel fuel rebate paid to those entitled to it to make up for the half a cent a litre increase in excise. If the Labor Party opposes that legislation, the Labor Party. He has just indicated he will oppose it. He will deny regional Australians the excise rebate they are excited to. He will take away from regional communities our action to ensure in is no additional past cost of transport passed on to those who live outside the cities. Shame, shame, shame on Labor.
block-time published-time 2.45pm AEST
Shorten to Abbott : Does the PM agree with the executive director of the Australian Automobile Association who yesterday described his petrol tax ambush as "I think frankly it's weak, it's weak, sneaky and it's tricky.' I have to say as well I think it's also quite a gutless less move.
Tony Abbott is exhorting a Team Australia approach.
To his credit, he has been prepared to think of our nation and not just the next election when it comes to national security and I say to the Leader of the Opposition it would be better for him as well as better for our country if on economic security as well as on national security he was prepared just for once to think about our country and not just about short-term politics.
block-time published-time 2.42pm AEST
Lindsay MP Fiona Scott asks "the wonderful minister for small business" about the red tape bonfire. Shucks, from Bruce Billson.
In the area of tax more than 440,000 small businesses will benefit from changes to entry thresholds for GST and PAYG reporting. That is $63m worth of compliance savings. In areas of the Corporations Act, the silly idea that you need to appoint and retain an auditor for certain corporations that don't need to conduct an audit. These are sensible changes.
block-time published-time 2.38pm AEST
A question to Joe Hockey on the performance of the Australian economy.
Bowen to Abbott : Why should Australian motorists pay oil companies because of your ambush on petrol tax?
This thing that members opposite are complaining about is a measure that was introduced by Bob Hawke, a real Labor leader. Now, Madam Speaker, I accept that as a result of this measure the average family will pay some 40cents a week more. I accept that. And no-one wants to pay more, even if it's only 40 cents a week.
It has been a recurring theme for the government, lauding Hawke and Keating over the current Labor party.
block-time published-time 2.34pm AEST
Bowser bandit part 2.
Tim Watts hands over his visual "bowser bandit" prop after speaker Bronwyn Bishop order the attendants to collect them. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 2.33pm AEST
A government question to Christopher Pyne says there has been an "avalanche of support" for the government's higher education changes.
Chris Bowen to treasurer Hockey on the petrol tax : Does the PM agree with his finance minister that, 'If it wasn't validated by the Parliament within 12 months the money will go back to fuel manufacturers and to fuel importers who will essentially have a windfall gain.'?
Hockey quotes Bowen on Sky News this morning: 'We've had a tax review, the Henry tax review, it didn't recommend this particular change to fuel excise.'
The Henry tax review had a fuel excise in recommendation 65.
Hockey quotes the Henry tax review : "Fuel tax should apply to all fuels used in road transport on the basis of energy content and be indexed to inflation.And be indexed to inflation! Hang on!"
The Labor Party can't get their facts right. The Labor Party can't be trusted with money. The Labor Party is just hopeless.
block-time published-time 2.25pm AEST
Labor to Abbott : Did the National Party support your increased petrol tax or did you ambush the National Party just like you ambushed the Australian people, particularly those living in regional and rural Australia?
The members of the coalition all understand that we were elected with a clear mandate to fix the Budget.
Which means the National Party wasn't told.
block-time published-time 2.22pm AEST
Immigration minister Scott Morrison is talking about the Scanlon report mentioned earlier.
One of the reasons we have been so strong on our borders is because we believe in our immigration program and we want to restore confidence in that immigration program that was lost under the previous government.
block-time published-time 2.19pm AEST
Cathy McGowan to Abbott : Can you please tell the house about your vision for the regions and how will this play out in practical terms for communities and businesses that are crippled by cross-border issues in areas such as Albury-Wodonga?
Abbott gives a nod to strong regions but then goes on to talk about his plans for tax reform. Back to work, regional Australia.
block-time published-time 2.18pm AEST
Shorten to Abbott : Page 5 of the PM's repeal day report shows that on top of his $2.2bn petrol tax ambush the PM is slugging petrol stations with their very own $5.1m petrol station tax $800 on average for every petrol station every year. Why is the PM so determined to hit Australian motorists with a petrol tax whammy?
It is not paid by petrol stations but by oil companies, says Abbott. Nothing new to see here.
block-time published-time 2.13pm AEST
Bowser Bandit.
opposition taunt the PM with headline "bowser bandit" during #QT@gabriellechan@GuardianAushttp://t.co/y2N0DGZMWspic.twitter.com/OELFPX8AuE
- Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) October 29, 2014
Speaker Bishop instructed the attendants to collect the unparliamentary props.
block-time published-time 2.12pm AEST
Government question to Julie Bishop : Will the minister please outline to the House what measures the Government is taking to protect our youth from extremism?
block-time published-time 2.10pm AEST
Labor to Abbott : Because poor people don't drive cars, as the treasurer said, they won't feel the petrol tax?
The treasurer has dealt with that matter and I have dealt with that matter. Obviously I stand by my words and the treasurer stands by the explanation and the apology he gave at the time.
block-time published-time 2.08pm AEST
Deal done on Direct Action
Lenore Taylor reports :
The Coalition's $2.5bn "Direct Action" climate policy appears likely to pass the Senate after the environment minister, Greg Hunt, agreed to minor amendments, but doubts remain about whether it can achieve Australia's 2020 emission reduction target and pave the way for deeper long-term cuts.
The government has agreed to independent senator Nick Xenophon's demand it move quickly to set up a "safeguards" scheme to impose penalties on companies that increase their greenhouse emissions - but has not committed to any detail.
It has rejected Xenophon's push to allow the government purchase international carbon permits, something the prime minister once described as sending "money ... offshore into dodgy carbon farms in Equatorial Guinea and Kazakhstan", even though this would have made it easier and cheaper to reach Australia's agreed emissions reduction target.
The government also agreed to get the Climate Change Authority - which it was once committed to abolish - to investigate the Palmer United party's idea of a dormant emissions trading scheme, which would be activated when major trading parties had equivalent policies - with the CCA to report to the parliament.
block-time published-time 2.07pm AEST
Abbott says "of course not" - no deal done with the Greens on support for the petrol tax.
Think of the country for once, says Abbott.
First government question is on national security laws.
block-time published-time 2.04pm AEST
Parliament is particularly rowdy this morning. Shorten has to withdraw the Bowser Bandit. Labor backbenchers hold up the Herald Sun front page with the Bowser Bandit headline.
Labor MPs Nick Champion and Terri Butler thrown out.
block-time published-time 2.01pm AEST
Question time begins! Sound the trumpets!
My question is to the PM, affectionately known as the "Bowser Bandit'. Has the PM done a dirty deal with the Greens?
block-time published-time 1.59pm AEST
Though my attention has been drawn by the foreign fighters' bill, there was the bonfire of the banalities in the lower house this morning.
It is otherwise known as Red Tape Repeal Day and has been characterised as a bonfire of red tape, pesky, stoopid laws which get in the way of Australians lifting not leaning.
The omnibus bill repealing red tape took the morning in the house. Labor tried to amend to say this is the normal job of government and should not be made such a big deal. Like publicising your housework.
Here is some flavour of the debate by Labor's Tony Burke, contrasting red tape with the recent petrol decision.
We have today, for a full day of parliamentary sittings, a grand total of $1.8 million of savings. That is what they are here boasting about in the same week they have added $5.1 million worth of compliance costs onto motorists throughout Australia. More than double additional compliance costs have been put in place in the same week of their big repeal day that delivers only $1.8 million. And you really have to ask some questions about the $1.8 million.
The role of one of the bills we have in front of us is to change punctuation. Its role is to remove hyphens, semicolons and commas and to return commas to other places. It will correct a spelling error that was made in 1995 that the Howard government had not picked up on and we did not pick up on. The member for Kooyong has found it so we need to set aside a day to be able to deal with the additional costs associated with this!
block-time published-time 1.51pm AEST
Jacqui Lambie has released a statement with two entirely unrelated subjects.
Palmer United Senator for Tasmania Jacqui Lambie between now and 2pm will deliver a speech which details the contents of a letter she has sent today to ASIO in response to media articles citing a "confidential ASIO" document as their source.
(I think that is the Asio burqa advice story by Peter Hartcher.)
Senator Lambie will also speak about her meeting yesterday with the Russian Ambassador his Excellency Vladimir N. Morozov.
block-time published-time 1.40pm AEST
Lunchtime politics summary
The second national security bill has passed the senate without a late Labor amendment relating to the definitions of reasons for legitimate travel to declared areas.
A late government change which would give secret intelligence agencies the right to pass on the locations of Australian terrorist fighters to the defence forces, allowing the potential targeting of Australians.
Julie Bishop has questioned the usefulness of the term "feminist" and said Julia Gillard was found wanting on competence rather than punished for her gender.
The government is trying to confirm the death of a senior Australian Isis fighter, who was responsible for recruiting other Australians to the conflict in the Middle East.
The senate is expected to debate the deregulation of universities this afternoon.
block-time published-time 1.21pm AEST
Murpharoo also asked about Julia Gillard :
Just in the spirit of this occasion, I'm just interested as a woman who has achieved a significant leadership role yourself and who will go on to perhaps greater leadership roles either in politics or beyond, setting politics aside for a moment and looking back at our immediate past female Prime Minister, whether you accept that there was an element of gender in how Julia Gillard was received by the public and by the media.
Julie Bishop :
I was as delighted as the next woman who Australia had its first female Prime Minister and I said so at the time and I recognised that there was an extraordinary outpouring of good will towards Julia Gillard as our first female prime minister but then, as should be the case, she was judged on her competence and that's where she was found wanting. And, sadly, I think, for the position of prime minister, she then turned herself into a victim and portrayed herself as a victim. That was her choice but as far as I'm concerned, she was being judged on her competence, her honesty, her performance as prime minister.
block-time published-time 1.18pm AEST
My fellow blogster Katharine Murphy is on her feet.
If I can take you back to feminism briefly, and the term. It's confusing to me that women on your side of politics live the life and yet don't always embrace the term so is the lack of embrace of the term because the term historically is more associated with progressive causes than perhaps the conservative side of politics and progress? I'm just interested in try to scratch the surface a little of why you don't reject the term but you don't embrace it?
Julie Bishop:
On the first issue, Katharine, with respect, I think you're over-analysing it. It's just not a term I use. I self-describe in many other ways but not as a feminist and it's not because I have some sort of pathological dislike of the term. I just don't use it. I can't speak on behalf of my colleagues. They may or may not. It's not part of my lexicon. It just isn't. And I don't think anybody should take office of that or read anything more than that into it. I'm a female politician, I'm a female foreign minister. Yeah, well, get over it.
block-time published-time 1.15pm AEST
Here's a bit more of Julie Bishop on the glass ceiling. She has no bumps on her head apparently.
I'm often asked how I find the glass ceiling. I me, I refuse to acknowledge it. I'm not saying doesn't exist for others, I'm not saying that at all, but itis the approach I've taken in life that if I want to do something I'll work hard, set my mind to it and try to do it. If it comes off, that's great. If it doesn't come off, I'm not going to blame the fact I'm a woman for it not working. I might look at whether I was competent enough or I worked hard enough or did the breaks go my way but I'm not going to see life through the prism of gender. I can only pass on my experience and when people ask me about that, that's the answer I give.
block-time published-time 1.12pm AEST
Julie Bishop, highlighting Women In Media, is asked about feminism.
Do you think the term "feminist" is still a useful one in current debates about women's empowerment and advancement and would you describe yourself as a feminist?
It's not a term that I find particularly useful these days. I recognise the role that it has played. I certainly recognise the women's movement and the barriers that they've faced and the challenges that they had to overcome but it's not something that I describe myself as. I'm not saying I'm not a feminist,I don't reject the term, I'm just saying that it's not a way I describe myself. First and foremost I'm a parliamentarian. First and foremost I'm a minister. So I don't find the need to self-describe in that way.
block-time published-time 1.10pm AEST
Julie Bishop is asked if seeking powers to pass on the whereabouts of Australian terrorist fighters is new legal territory for the Australian defence forces.
We call it the Australian secret intelligence service because it's secret. I don't comment on intelligence matters and I don't intend to comment on the operations of our intelligence services overseas, lest it risk lives. But the new phenomenon of foreign fighters in unprecedented numbers, this concept of home-grown terrorists who have been battle-hardened in Iraq and Syria is something we all have to deal with. Now, ASIO and the Federal Police, within the domestic scenario, collect intelligence on Australian citizens.
We now have Australian citizens who are taking part in a conflict in countries 12,000km or more away and are breaking Australian laws, very serious Australian laws, so what we need to do is ensure that our intelligence agencies are able to share the necessary information so that we can detect and, if necessary, prosecute those who are breaking Australian and potentially international laws.
block-time published-time 1.04pm AEST
Foreign minister Julie Bishop said she could not confirm reports that a senior Australian Isis member had been killed in the past week.
The ABC reports :
Mohammad Ali Baryalei, the fugitive Australian terrorist accused of masterminding a plot to kill random members of the public in Sydney, is believed to have been killed in fighting in the Middle East.
Baryalei has recruited dozens of Australians onto the battlefield in Syria and Iraq.
It is understood he died four or five days ago.
Bishop said:
We are currently seeking to verify those reports so I can't confirm at this stage. It does highlight what the government has been saying, that Australians who leave this country to fight in Iraq and Syria are putting themselves in mortal danger.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.04pm AEST
block-time published-time 1.00pm AEST
As the foreign fighters bill passes, social services minister Kevin Andrews welcomed a report providing further evidence of Australia as a cohesive society.
Andrews said the findings of the Scanlon Foundation's 2014 Mapping Social Cohesion report confirmed the government's commitment to a multicultural Australia and to strengthen social cohesion.
About 2500 people were surveyed across two polls which found high levels of belonging and broad public support for multiculturalism. It found an almost unanimous (92 per cent) sense of belonging to Australia, pride in the Australian way of life (88 per cent) and that its maintenance was important (91 per cent). Support for multiculturalism remained strong, with 85 per cent of respondents agreeing that "multiculturalism has been good for Australia. Concerns over immigration were also at their lowest level since the first survey in 2007, with just 35 per cent of respondents considered the immigration intake "too high".
If you haven't read it already, David Marr has addressed this report. Here he is:
Tony Abbott's crusade against terrorism has worked a miracle. Suddenly we are less cynical of Canberra and more enthusiastic than ever about the Australian way of life. We may not have taken Abbott to our hearts, but government is having a big win. Patriotism is on the march.
block-time published-time 12.51pm AEST
Foreign fighters bill passes the senate
Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (foreign fighters) Bill 2014 passes the senate.
block-time published-time 12.48pm AEST
The vote is that the remaining stages be agreed to and the bill be passed:
Support:
Coalition, ALP PUP, Muir, Day, Madigan.
Oppose:
Greens, Leyonhjelm, Xenophon.
block-time published-time 12.46pm AEST
We are heading into the final vote on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (foreign fighters) Bill 2014.
The bells are ringing.
block-time published-time 12.44pm AEST
Greens amendment goes down with only the support of David Leyonhjelm. Everyone else opposed.
block-time published-time 12.36pm AEST
Labor has the support of the Greens and Leyonhjelm.
Government has support of Day, PUP, Muir, Madigan and Xenophon.
Labor loses amendment to give courts the powers to determine legitimate travel to declared areas in the foreign fighters bill.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.41pm AEST
block-time published-time 12.33pm AEST
George Brandis gives Wong a lecture on bringing partisan politics into the debate, saying the joint committee had worked in a collaborative and bi-partisan way as "patriots".
It wasn't the work of one side of politics, it was the work of all sides of politics.
Except the crossbenchers. It was only Labor, Liberal and National party members on the joint committee which reviewed the bill.
George Brandis damns the Labor amendment as "appalling statutory drafting".
He says we are dealing with a crime, the courts would allow an uncertainty that was not acceptable for people who would not know when they travelled, whether they were approved for travel.
Voting now on the Labor amendment.
As before, no photos are allowed.
block-time published-time 12.21pm AEST
Here are the exceptions for travel from the foreign fighters bill:
Exception-entering or remaining solely for legitimate purposes(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person enters, or remains in, the area solely for one or more of the following purposes:
(a) providing aid of a humanitarian nature ;
(b) satisfying an obligation to appear before a court or other body exercising judicial power;
(c) performing an official duty for the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory;
(d) performing an official duty for the government of a foreign country or the government of part of a foreign country (including service in the armed forces of the government of a foreign country), where that performance would not be a violation of the law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory;
(e) performing an official duty for the United Nations or an agency of the United Nations;
(f) making a news report of events in the area, where the person is working in a professional capacity as a journalist or is assisting another person working in a professional capacity as a journalist;
(g) making a bona fide visit to a family member ;
(h) any other purpose prescribed by the regulations.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in 8 subsection (3): see subsection 13.3(3).
A couple of points:
The government can prescribe another reason by regulation.
You can visit families but not friends.
Therefore, Labor is seeking to allow courts to decide what is bone fide.
block-time published-time 12.12pm AEST
Labor leader in the senate, Penny Wong is outlining Labor's broad position on the national security laws, which she says has been "strong and principled".
Wong is saying while Labor's approach has been largely bipartisan, the government had not adopted all the recommendations from the joint committee.
She has moved an amendment to the "declared areas" offence. We need to make sure Australians who are in areas for legitimate reasons are not caught up.
Labor wants to ensure that the courts can determine whether the purpose for travel is legitimate.
The current bill determines "legitimate reasons" rather than the courts.
I will deliver the list of reasons shortly.
block-time published-time 11.55am AEST
The senate is now voting on the Greens amendment to overturn no-go zones. Without the support of a major party, it will be a no-go vote.
block-time published-time 11.54am AEST
We will build dams.
National water infrastructure round table in Parliament House this morning, Barnaby Joyce addresses the room. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
Barnaby Joyce opened the national infrastructure round table talks with that statement.
block-time published-time 11.50am AEST
Penny Wright is plugging away with George Brandis in the senate, now asking about family visits. This part of the debate is a to and fro process, where senators get to quiz the minister on how the legislation works. It is actually a very enlightening process that does not happen in the lower house.
Wright says the no-go zones would have a chilling effect on people visiting family, where they take a side trip for another family event.
George Brandis says the issue here is the "sole purpose" test, where someone must be travelling solely for the reason provided to the government by the traveller. He does not think a side trip to a different place for a similar family event would be caught up.
block-time published-time 11.43am AEST
Just by-the-by, Tony Abbott has visited Questacon. The PM's science awards are on tonight. Abbott told the audience he used to take his kids to Questacon when he was a "younger parent".
block-time published-time 11.40am AEST
The senate continues to argue over the no-go zones. George Brandis is arguing there is precedence for exclusion zones because Australians already cannot visit areas like defence bases, indigenous communities and parts of the Antarctic.
Brandis says if a person is in an area when it is declared, they commit an offence by remaining there without a legitimate reason. DFAT would publicise the "declared area" in the media and online.
block-time published-time 11.27am AEST
Government seeking powers to track down Australian terrorists
Foreign minister Julie Bishop has addressed the issue in Nick Butterly's story this morning about the government seeking powers to track down and potentially allow the Australian Defence Forces to target Australian terrorist fighters.
The powers would allow Australian intelligence agencies to provide information to Australian defence forces regarding the whereabouts of Australian terrorist fighters.
Q: Would you like to prevent them from ever returning to Australia is the question?
The tragedy is that a number of them will be killed and a number of them have been killed in Iraq and Syria. We urge young Australians in particular not to be radicalised. Don't succumb to the false ideology of these poisonous organisations and we urge them not to break Australian laws by leaving this country to take up arms with ISIL. I will not go into intelligence matters or the details of what our intelligence agencies do overseas. That would put lives at risk but we're seeking an appropriate level of power and authority for our security and intelligence agencies so we can keep Australians safe. That is the primary responsibility of a Federal Government and that is what we intend to do.
block-time published-time 11.20am AEST
Greens senator Penny Wright is now speaking to the no-go zones. This is where people have to prove legitimate reasons for travelling to excluded areas otherwise they can be jailed. It particularly targets areas where Isis is fighting.
Wright says the law risks alienating the very communities which the government will need to work with to combat terrorism. She says it is a departure from rule of law principles.
This is no departure from rule of law principles, says the attorney general.
block-time published-time 11.15am AEST
This man is a senator further away from the chamber.
NSW senator Bill Heffernan arrives at the senate. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
I'll stop there.
block-time published-time 11.13am AEST
Here is a senator in football socks, also outside the chamber.
Victorian senator Stephen Conroy arriving this morning. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 11.12am AEST
These men are senators outside the chamber.
WA liberal senator Chris Back (right) and SA Family First senator Bob Day talk at the ritual called senate doors. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 11.10am AEST
Just to recap on the foreign fighters bill currently before the senate, and due to be guillotined at 12.30pm, this is Daniel Hurst's explanation of what it does:
The bill would create a new offence of advocating terrorism, toughen penalties for Australians who fight with extremist groups overseas, create new international "no-go zones" for travel without a legitimate reason, extend preventative detention and control order arrangements, and allow police to search properties secretly and notify the person about the warrant later.
It would also allow the collection of photos of millions of Australians at airports, but the bipartisan intelligence and security committee called for an amendment specifically to exclude the storage of fingerprints and iris scans.
block-time published-time 11.07am AEST
George Brandis is now amending his own bill, following the joint committee reports.
block-time published-time 11.04am AEST
Labor loses foreign fighters bill amendment
Labor loses the amendment vote. Leyonjhelm and the Greens vote with Labor.
PUP, Ricky Muir, Bob Day, Nick Xenophon, John Madigan vote with the government.
block-time published-time 11.01am AEST
This is the Labor amendment. It seeks to exempt people from the offence of "advocacy of terrorism".
Without limiting subsection (1), section 80.2C does not apply to a person who engages in good faith in public discussion of any genuine academic, artistic, scientific, political or religious matter.
block-time published-time 10.57am AEST
Now the senate is debating the Labor amendment to the foreign fighters bill. Labor wants to expand the "good faith" provision in the bill, to ensure legitimate public debate is not caught up in the offence of "advocacy of terrorism".
George Brandis says Labor's amendments are too vague, technically unnecessary and that they have the capacity to confuse a jury and "defeat the purpose" of the legislation.
Labor's Jacinta Collins says senators have a duty to get this right for our multiculturalism and urges senators to "err on the side of caution".
We are going to a vote now and we would bring you the photo but we are suddenly not allowed to photograph a division in the senate. It is allowed in the house.
block-time published-time 10.46am AEST
Der. Look up the Oxford dictionary.
Attorney-General George Brandis speaks during debate on the foreign fighters bill in the senate. Photograph: Mike Bowers Guardian Australia/Mike Bowers Guardian Australia
block-time published-time 10.44am AEST
Bill Shorten is doing a door stop on higher education, petrol taxes and other issues of the day.
Shorten notes Victorian premier Denis Napthine - who is facing an election - needs the petrol tax like "another hole in the head".
block-time published-time 10.40am AEST
The word "promotes" has its common speech meaning, says Brandis. Look no further than the Oxford English Dictionary.
We do have the separation of powers in this country, says Brandis. It's not for the parliament to set out whether a T-shirt or a word applies, we can rely upon and "trust judges and juries" to apply this "clear and statutory language" to interpret the laws.
I don't want to be tedious and repeat myself...this is about the advocacy of terrorism.
block-time published-time 10.36am AEST
Greens senator Penny Wright says there are serious questions about the term "promote" in regard to terrorism. For example, can you wear an Isis T-shirt - "not that it would be in my wardrobe".
block-time published-time 10.34am AEST
Labor's Sam Dastyari asks Brandis about what the government is doing on countering radical extremism, supporting communities which are trying to encourage young people to do the right thing.
The speed with which some people can be radicalised is exactly why we need this offence against advocacy of terrorism, says George Brandis.
Once a person has been radicalised and travelled to fight with Isil, in most cases frankly they are lost....These measures, the advocacy of terrorism, are not directed to the vulnerable young men who are the targets, they are directed to the evil old men who are the proselytisers and the predators and the advocates who seek to ensnare young men in this false and perverted and distorted view of the Islamic faith.
block-time published-time 10.24am AEST
Attorney general George Brandis is arguing to the merits of his foreign fighters bill and rejecting Penny Wright's criticism.
There's not a word in this bill that impinges upon or restricts freedom of opinion. If a person wants to express radical views, if they want to promote or proselytise a radical view of the world or a non-mainstream view of the world, they are perfectly free to do so. What they are not free to do and what they shouldn't be free to do is to advocate the commission of a terrorist act or the commission of a terrorism offence.
block-time published-time 10.09am AEST
The argument in the senate right now is about advocacy of terrorism.
But first, much of the news around this morning relates to the bill's effect on genuine news reporting. Foreign minister Julie Bishop, for example, said this morning it was not directed at journalists reporting in the public interest.
To be clear, the first tranche of national security laws - already passed - contained laws which will allow governments to jail journalists.
Independent senator Nick Xenophon is hoping to insert a public interest test in those first national security laws on special intelligence operations to allow media scrutiny of the intelligence services.
The second national security bill - currently before the house - relating to media is about advocacy of terrorism, propaganda and paid advertisements.
This is the bit in the explanatory memorandum from the bill relating to advertising:
901. New subsections 119.7(2) and (3) create offences for publishing items relevant to recruiting.
902. New subsection 119.7(2) creates an offence for intentionally publishing in Australia an advertisement or item of news that was procured by the provision or promise of money or any other consideration reckless as to the fact that the publication of the advertisement or item of news is for the purpose of recruiting persons to serve in any capacity in or with an armed force in a foreign country.
903. New subsection 119.7(3) creates an offence for intentionally publishing in Australia an advertisement or item of news that was procured by the provision or promise of money or any other consideration reckless as to the fact that the advertisement or item of news contains information relating to the place at which, or the manner in which, persons may make applications to serve, or obtain information relating to service, in any capacity in or with an armed force in a foreign country or relating to the manner in which persons may travel to a foreign country for the purpose of serving in any capacity in or with an armed force in a foreign country.
904. The maximum penalty for contravening the offences in subsections 119.7(2) and (3) is imprisonment for ten years, reflecting the relative seriousness of the conduct.
block-time published-time 9.43am AEST
Greens senator Penny Wright is straight into debate on the foreign fighters bill in the senate.
It's simply too late to ponder the consequences and in some cases to rue them once the law is passed.
block-time published-time 9.26am AEST
There have long been rumours around the parliament that there was advice on the need or wisdom of a burqa ban from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. The story was that Asio provided advice during the life of the last Labor government after senators like Cory Bernardi started agitating for it in 2010.
Peter Hartcher at Fairfax has come up with the advice in 2011 which shows a burqa ban in parliament was both unnecessary from a security point of view and counterproductive. And he reports Asio has not changed its opinion after the recent kerfuffle which saw the presiding officers put in place a temporary ban which has since been overturned.
ASIO has found there is no valid security reason to ban the burqa.
In a confidential report, the agency says the only security consequences of banning the burqa would likely be "predominately, if not wholly, negative".
The report by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, obtained by Fairfax Media, concluded: "Any move in this direction would likely have negative implications, including increased tensions and distrust between communities, and providing further fuel for extremist propaganda, recruitment, and radicalisation efforts."
This is what Asio said on the security wisdom of a ban.
The Asio assessment finds no basis for any ban on security grounds: "While the burqa can be used to conceal the identity of an individual or material carried on the body, this is also true of other items of headwear and clothing.
block-time published-time 9.11am AEST
Nick Butterly of the West Australian has an explosive story suggesting the government is seeking to target Australians fighting with Isis in the Middle East.
The Federal Government is seeking emergency powers to target and possibly kill Australian jihadists fighting overseas with radical groups such as Islamic State.
The coalition wants to give the Australian Secret Intelligence Service power to inform the Australian Defence Force about the whereabouts of Australian foreign fighters.
If approved, Australian spies could potentially pinpoint Australians fighting in Iraq, allowing RAAF jets to target them in bombing missions.
Nick reports that the government tried to include the powers in the foreign fighters bill but the senate committee wanted it properly debated in a separate bill.
The Government proposed to alter the Act governing the operation of security agencies to allow ASIS to: "Provide assistance to the Defence Force in support of military operations and to co-operate with the Defence Force on intelligence matters."
block-time published-time 8.54am AEST
Morning politics
Greetings earthlings,
On Wednesday, being hump day, there is a whole lot of news in the parliamentary sitting week.
Though I know you are all globe trotters, by the end of the day you will not be able to travel to certain areas in the world without risking jail.
Top of the parliamentary agenda is the foreign fighters bill, which while criticised by the Liberal-led human rights committee of parliament, will be waved through the senate with the help of a government gag. Nick Xenophon, David Leyonhjelm and the Greens were the dissenters, but hey, crossbenchers don't count when the majors get their heads together. This is the second national security bill and this one allows people to be jailed for travelling to no go areas for up to 10 years. There goes the visit to Aunty.
The petrol tax is still firmly implanted in the news, with finance minister Mathias Cormann defending the move as not bypassing the parliament, given the parliament will eventually have to tick it off. Motorist groups are telling drivers to keep their receipts in shoe boxes in case it does not get through. There has been a fair bit of argument in the media and amongst economists that the indexation is required to keep pace but the usual government cheerleaders such as the Institute of Public Affairs have not been kind, describing the move as "undemocratic". Bill Shorten separated the merit of the indexation of excise from the broken promise.
This is a government who didn't do any homework in opposition, they sleep walk their way to the budget, they came down with a series of measures that they hadn't argued and tested with the Australian people. Why on earth should Labor let the PM get off breaking promises? He went to the polls and got people to vote from saying that there would be no new or increased taxes. Why do you think we should just allow him to lie his way into office and then sit there and say oh well, fair enough, you're allowed to treat us all as stupid and we should just sign off on it.
There is lots more besides. By now, you may have heard the story in News Corp papers about Labor senator Nova Peris, with allegations of using funding from Athletics Australia get a fellow athlete to Australia with whom she was having an affair. More on that later.
Parliament sits at 9am, with more repeal bonfires and we can expect the higher education deregulation bill to be debated in the senate once the foreign fighters is in the can.
Follow our conversation on Twitter with me @gabrielle and my partner in crime @mpbowers. I have more of Mike's photos coming up shortly.
Palmer backs down on ETS, delivers Direct Action to Abbott - politics live Environment minister Greg Hunt announces deal with Clive Palmer to pass Liberal climate change grants scheme Direct Action without an emissions trading scheme. Follow the day's developments live... false theguardian.com true http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/10/29/1414547725847/fd1b1084-89c6-4128-ba62-cf88eb0e3660-140x84.jpeg 8757 true 450848062 false 545003d6e4b03ba8725f2b8c false Gabrielle Chan false 2183424 AUS true 2014-11-01T08:00:00+11:00
LOAD-DATE: October 29, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
471 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 29, 2014 Wednesday 7:00 AM GMT
10 sustainable innovations: from solar-powered suitcases to floating classrooms;
Tackling global challenges including Bangladeshi floods, water scarcity, fashion waste and death in childbirth, the runners up for the Sustainia awards showcase business innovation
BYLINE: Laura Storm
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 1445 words
The 2014 Sustainia Awards, chaired by Arnold Schwarzenegger, attracted more than 900 submissions for projects and technologies representing 10 different sectors from food, fashion and, city development to transportation and healthcare. Collectively, these projects are deployed in more than 84 countries.
The runners up for the award are showcased here and the winner will be announced in Copenhagen on Thursday 30 October. The ceremony will celebrate these innovations ahead of the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) anticipated report on climate change, due to be finalised 31 October.
1. Food finalist: Netafim (Israel) - gravity-powered irrigation
Netafim is behind a low-tech irrigation system for smallholder farmers in developing countries which increases and secures yields while saving water and cutting costs. It drips precise quantities of water and nutrients right at the root zone of crops while an elevated tank distributes the water using gravity.
This minimises the need for electricity and investments in infrastructure. The UN estimates that 500 million smallholder farmers provide over 80% of the food consumed in the developing world. Irrigation systems are vital to sustain agriculture as it addresses water scarcity and soil erosion. The solution is commercially viable with a payback-time of about a year, making it fit for microfinance projects.
2. Transportation finalist: 8D technologies (Canada) - bike sharing app
As a mode of transport, the bicycle is one of the lowest emitter of greenhouse gases - even with the CO2 emissions of the food you need to power a bike. This helps explain why bike-sharing systems are being adopted increasingly by cities. The Spotcycle app from 8D technologies aims to make bike-sharing more convenient and smartphone-friendly. The app locates nearby bike stations and communicates availability, maps out bike paths and helps with navigation. The app is already in sync with cities in North America, Australia and Europe.
3. Buildings finalist: Advantix (USA) - air-conditioners which use saltwater
Air conditioners use about 5% of all electricity produced in the US. As a result, 100m tons of carbon dioxide are released each year. Advantix's air conditioning system uses saltwater which means it needs 40% less energy than normal systems. Whereas air-conditioning systems normally chill the air to remove humidity and then reheat it in a highly energy-intensive process, Advantix's air-conditioners funnel the air through non-toxic fluid saltwater instead. The process dehumidifies the air without the need for re-heating.
4. Fashion finalist: I:CO (Switzerland) - textile recycling
Clothes are often discarded after the first or second life cycle, and apparel accounts for up to 10% of a western consumer's environmental impacts. Through an advanced take-back system, I:CO works to keep apparel, footwear and other textiles in a continuous closed-loop cycle. Used shoes and clothing are collected in stores and retail outlets, where customers are financially rewarded for depositing their used items. Once collected, the textiles are sorted according to more than 350 criteria for designation. Used clothes can be labeled suitable for: second-hand sale, recycling into fibres and paddings for new products, or upcycling.
5. IT Finalist: Fairphone (Netherlands) - A smart-phone with social values
Through development, design and production, social enterprise Fairphone works to create positive social impact in the consumer electronics supply chain - from responsible mining, decent wages and working conditions to reuse and recycling.
Fairphone began by redesigning the processes behind the production, making phones that use conflict- free minerals and are assembled in a factory with a worker-controlled welfare fund. To date, Fairphone has sold nearly 50,000 phones from its first two production runs.
6. Health finalist: We Care Solar (USA) - solar suitcases giving life
Preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth claim 800 lives daily and 99% of cases happen in developing countries. We Care Solar has created a sustainable solution. The Solar Suitcase provides solar electricity for medical lighting, mobile communication and essential medical devices for rural areas and humanitarian settings. This enables safe and timely obstetric care, which ultimately improves maternal and neonatal outcomes. Additionally, the innovation allows emergency surgeries to be conducted around-the-clock in rural hospitals. The Solar Suitcase has been introduced to more than 600 healthcare facilities in 20 countries.
7. City Finalists: Wecyclers (Nigeria) - Pedal-powered recycling
In Lagos, Nigeria, Wecyclers is fuelling social and environmental change by enabling people in low-income communities to make money from unmanaged waste piling up in their streets.
It is a response to the local waste crisis; the municipal government collects only 40% of city garbage. The Wecyclers initiative has deployed a fleet of cargo bicycles to pick-up, collect and recycle garbage in low-income neighbourhoods. Families are encouraged to recycle their bottles, cans and plastics through an SMS-based programme. For every kilogram of material recycled, the family receives Wecyclers points on their cell phone. Families can then redeem points for goods such as cell phone minutes, basic food items or household goods. The initiative adds to the local economy by hiring personnel locally.
8. Resource finalist: Newlight Tech (USA) - carbon-negative plastic
With its novel technology that converts greenhouse gases into plastic material, AirCarbon has disrupted the market by replacing oil-based plastics with a sustainable product that is competitive in both price and performance. It is made from a process where carbon in the air is captured and used in manufacturing. AirCarbon uses pollutants as resources to make products otherwise made from oil. Products made from AirCarbon are carbon-negative even after calculating the emissions from the energy used in production. AirCarbon is currently used to make chairs, bags and cell phone cases.
9. Education finalists: Shidhulai Swanirvar Sangstha (Bangladesh) - school boats combatting climate change
More than one million Bangladeshis could be displaced by rising sea levels by 2050. One consequence is that children cannot attend school for long periods of time, making it harder for them to escape poverty. By building a fleet of solar-powered school boats, the Bangladeshi initiative Shidhulai Swanirvar Sangstha has secured year-round education in flood-prone regions of Bangladesh. Each floating school boat collects students from different riverside villages, ultimately docking at the last destination where on-board classes begin. Solar lighting makes the schedule flexible, which provides for additional educational programs in the evening. Shidhulai's floating schools model has been replicated in Nigeria, Cambodia, Philippines, Vietnam and Zambia.
10. Energy Finalists: Opower (USA) - personal energy-efficient expert
Through use of big data, Opower has given energy utilities a new way of engaging with customers in order to improve energy efficiency. The software solution combines cloud technology, big data and behavioural science to produce data analyses and personalised information on how to save energy. To motivate reductions in energy consumption, utilities use Opower to share money-saving insights with custumers. Opower can also show households their energy usage compared to neighbours; an effective method in motivating people to save energy. Opower has enabled savings of over 4TWh of energy, which is equivalent to $458m (£283.1) in bill savings.
Laura Storm is executive director at Sustainia
Read more stories like this:
Energy efficient air conditioning is within sight
Personalising climate change through open data and apps
From fashion to transport: businesses are leading on sustainable innovation
The technology and innovation hub is funded by BT. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled advertisement feature. Find out more here .
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: October 29, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
472 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
October 29, 2014 Wednesday
Late Edition - Final
Europe's Ambitious Climate Goal
BYLINE: By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; EDITORIAL; Pg. 28
LENGTH: 560 words
The European Union continues to lead by example on the issue of climate change. Last week, the union's 28 members agreed to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40 percent, compared with 1990 levels, by 2030.
This is, of course, just a number. Goals are easy to set but harder to meet, and many details of how Europe gets from here to there remain undecided. But the plan is an important step forward as well as a clear signal to other big emitters of greenhouse gases to set ambitious goals of their own in the months leading up to the next United Nations summit meeting on climate change scheduled for December 2015 in Paris.
Europe has already made impressive progress. In 2012, European Union greenhouse gas emissions were 18 percent below 1990 levels, just shy of the 20 percent threshold that the union had set for 2020. Some of that reduction resulted from the deep recession many European countries suffered after the financial crisis. But the shutdown of many coal-fired plants and major investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources like wind and solar also played a big part.
The union will now have to redouble those efforts. Less-developed members of the European Union like Poland and the Czech Republic, which still rely heavily on coal to generate electricity and are not as energy efficient as the rest of Europe, will find it harder to reduce emissions than countries like Britain and Sweden. European leaders shrewdly, and rightly, offered financial incentives to the laggards to get them to sign on to the new agreement. However, they gave only a broad outline of how they intend to reduce emissions. Nor did they offer a plan to strengthen the union's pioneering emissions trading program, which uses a system of permits to force power plants, steel mills and other industries to lower emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas. Although the program played a role in Europe's success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it was not particularly well designed or stringent to begin with; in recent years, the price of permits has collapsed, reducing the incentive for industry to lower emissions.
Another problem is that the energy policies of the European Union countries are not well coordinated, hurting opportunities to curb emissions. For instance, the lack of transmission lines connecting European countries means that solar and wind farms in Spain or Portugal cannot sell the surplus electricity they generate beyond their borders. And because each national government supports its favored source of energy through subsidies and other policies -- nuclear in France, for instance, and renewables in Germany -- there is no single European electricity market. European leaders made only vague commitments last week to establishing a more coherent system.
A third problem is Germany's insistence on phasing out its nuclear industry, which has increased its reliance on coal and Russian natural gas. Still, Europe is moving faster and more aggressively than any other large economy to limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the preindustrial level -- a level formally acknowledged at the Copenhagen summit meeting in 2009 as the point beyond which the impacts of climate change could become unacceptable. The rest of the world needs to match Europe's ambitions.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/opinion/europes-ambitious-climate-goal.html
LOAD-DATE: October 29, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Editorial
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
473 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 28, 2014 Tuesday 6:56 PM GMT
War on windfarms blows up a storm
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 577 words
What Polly Toynbee didn't say ( This war on windfarms is the Tories' latest sop to Ukip, 28 October) was that two weeks ago wind generated 25% of Britain's power. What we should be doing is growing our own indigenous wind turbine industry, as at the moment we import them from mainly Germany and Denmark. A British wind turbine industry would generate much-needed skilled jobs in manufacturing, and improve our balance of payments too.
Britain could be self-sufficient in cheap energy, as we are surrounded by the sea and wind; the risk of being reliant on imported, expensive fossil fuels would be eliminated, with lower industrial costs making us able to export cheaply. As lower electricity costs were passed on to the consumer, this would boost the economy, as people didn't have to worry about the "second mortgage" that has become the energy price rip-off. Government could legislate that all newbuild housing should have solar panels as standard.
Are we really saying that the country that invented radar, television, antibiotics and the jet engine, among other things - the country of Alan Turing, Tim Berners-Lee and Peter Higgs - cannot grasp the nettle of a new age of affordable, clean energy?
It was once said that the trade unions were luddites for not embracing change; today the real luddites are Eric Pickles, Nigel Farage and the rest of the Tory and Ukip parties. Alan QuinnPrestwich, Manchester
· Maybe reactionary populism works by threes. In the US to be a true Republican (as defined by the Tea Party) is to be against gun control, against abortion and against "the climate change lobby". And, as Polly Toynbee notes, to be a true Tory (as defined by Ukip) is to be against Europe, against immigration and against windfarms.
In fact Ukip has been at the forefront of many local campaigns against wind energy, including the offshore Atlantic Array, but not on the Somerset levels. The campaign against the Ecotricity proposals that Toynbee speaks of has been led by the Huntspill Windfarm Action Group.
Rather than condemn such groups, it is vital to understand the real sense of fear and loss that often underlies what we might otherwise too easily dismiss as nimbyism. For it is the same fear and loss that fuels anti-European and anti-immigrant sentiment. The need to cling to the idea of a timeless British (physical and social) landscape has been a recurring theme of Toryism, and it is this that Ukip now threatens to capture from the Conservatives. Paul HoggettChair,Climate Psychology Alliance
· Yes, windfarms are political but Polly Toynbee shouldn't link all opposition to windfarms with climate-change denials. Wind turbines in the right place are a useful part of a mixed energy policy, even though wind power is not particularly clean or cheap once all construction, standby and transmission factors are considered.
There are other reasons for opposing windfarms. They are on an industrial scale, but built mostly in rural areas, and they create only a tiny number of rural jobs. The real money goes to the developer and the (often rich) landowner, paid by customers (including the poor) via subsidies on their energy bills. Whatever Mr Pickles' reason for calling in appeals, at least it means MPs and councils are now beginning to listen to local opposition.
Come to Northumberland or east Yorkshire and see the damage done to the landscape there, and listen to the outcry from residents, left and right. Mike PadgettSancton, Yorkshire
LOAD-DATE: October 29, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
474 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 28, 2014 Tuesday 3:03 PM GMT
Lloyds bill for missold PPI rises to £11bn;
Lloyds confirms plan to axe 9,000 jobsBP profits fall on Russia troubleFederal Reserve expected to end QE financial stimulus programme
BYLINE: Jennifer Rankin
SECTION: BUSINESS
LENGTH: 4144 words
block-time published-time 3.01pm GMT
Summary
It is mid-afternoon and Europe's markets are holding their gains.
FTSE100 +0.53% at 6397 points
Germany's DAX +1.8% at 9062 points
Italy's FTSE MIB +1.72% at 19,360 points
France's CAC40 +0.48% at 4117 points
On the FTSE100 Standard Chartered remains a big faller, down 8.3%, after announcing a fall in profits. Lloyds bank is down 1.4% after announcing job losses and branch closures. BP is up 1% despite suffering from falling oil prices and economic turmoil in Russia.
That's all from the business live today. Thank you for following.
block-time published-time 2.44pm GMT
David Cameron has been urged to take a stand against modern-day slavery and the abuse of migrant workers in Qatar.
As David Cameron prepares to meet the Emir of Qatar, the Trade Union Congress said the prime minister should use his influence to seek to end the abuse of migrant workers in the Gulf state.
In an open letter to 10 Downing Street, the TUC called on Cameron to press the Emir of Qatar to take action against slavery and abuse of construction workers.
Conditions for foreign workers in Qatar, including those building the infrastructure needed for the 2022 World Cup, continue to be of grave concern.
Figures confirmed by Qatar show that 964 workers from India and Nepal alone died between 2012 and 2013, a rate of 40 every month, with unsafe working and living conditions equally to blame. Many other workers are left for months without pay. These workers are completely trapped by the sponsorship system known as kafala which gives employers complete power to grant or deny workers the right to leave Qatar.
The TUC wants to see an end to the kafala system, freedom for workers to join unions, and guarantees that the government will only use ethical recruitment companies.
TUC General Secretary Frances O'Grady said:
Silence from David Cameron will be taken as support for what is effectively slavery in Qatar. Britain must be part of the international campaign to ensure that Qatar improves living and working conditions for migrant workers.
block-time published-time 2.02pm GMT
Look ahead: US Fed meeting
Is it time to say goodbye to US financial stimulus?
The US Federal Reserve's interest-rate setting committee begins a two-day meeting, expected to conclude tomorrow with an announcement ending its asset-buying programme.
The Fed has purchased $1.6 trillion in Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities since September 2012, which has helped keep US interest rates down, allowing the economy to recover.
When Fed policymakers hinted they might end financial stimulus in 2013, investors threw taper tantrums, selling off equities and dumping foreign currencies.
Now the mood has changed. The consensus among market watchers is that the Fed will announce an end to its asset-buying programme, quantitative easing, when its meeting wraps up on Wednesday. The central bank is also expected to issue guidance on the timing of interest-rate rises.
All this comes just ahead of an update on third-quarter US economic growth on Friday, which is expected to show growth of 3.1%.
Economists are split on exactly when the Fed will wind up its bond-buying programme, according to a Wall Street Journal poll.
About two-fifths of economists-39%-expect the Fed's bond purchases to end entirely in the third quarter of 2014. About one-third-34%-expect the central bank to halt the program in the fourth quarter, and 19% expect the end to come in early 2015.
Economists are equally divided on when the Fed will begin raising rates.
Some Fed officials are reported to want to stand by an earlier pledge not to raise rates until mid 2015. Others may are said to want to drop any reference to time, because they think it depends on the economic data.
Janet Yellen, Federal Reserve chairman, speaks at a recent meeting of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Susan Walsh/AP Photograph: Susan Walsh/AP
Whatever they decide the consequences are likely to reverberate in markets around the world.
Nicholas Ebisch, currency analyst at Caxton FX, expects "profound effects" on currency and stock markets in the US and around the world.
The dollar is stable at the moment and has maintained a strong position since its steady appreciation in the second half of the year, but any sign of prolonging the QE programme, or extending low interest rates for longer should damage the greenback.
Further reading
Market Watch: Fed will hold market's hand as it ends QE3
Wall Street Journal: Economists split on start of Fed pullback
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 2.21pm GMT
block-time published-time 1.14pm GMT
"All options" considered to aid Europe's oldest bank
In Rome, discussions about the fate of Europe's oldest bank are underway.
The Palazzo Salimbeni, site of Monte dei Paschi bank in Siena. Carlo Ferraro/EPA Photograph: CARLO FERRARO/EPA
Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena, founded in 1472, has been in the spotlight after failing European banking stress tests. Regulators said it needed to raise (EURO)2.1 bn ($2.7 billion) to meet capital thresholds - a key benchmark of the bank's financial health.
According to Reuters, Italy's Treasury may extend repayment deadlines on hundreds of millions of euros in state aid to help troubled lender.
Officials, who declined to be cited by name, said Monte dei Paschi Chairman Alessandro Profumo and Chief Executive Fabrizio Viola had held meetings in the Economy Ministry on Monday to seek options for the bank, after it failed European Central Bank stress tests.
It could be helped via Monti bonds, which are named after former prime minister Mario Monti, rather than the bank.
The person close to the situation gave no details of the talks but said nothing had been ruled out, including options connected with repayment of 750 million euros of state aid, offered in the form of "Monti Bonds" in 2013 to prop up the bank after a previous crisis.
Asked whether a delay in the repayment schedule or converting the loan into share capital in the bank was being looked at, the person said: "All options are under consideration. The bank is working on it. The system is solid.
No comment was available from Monte dei Paschi.
Shares in the bank are now up 2.23%, after yesterday's dramatic losses when the bank saw a quarter of its value wiped out.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.15pm GMT
block-time published-time 12.54pm GMT
Over on the Guardian's data blog, new figures reveal how Spain's years of recession have damaged the country.
Child poverty, already above the EU average, has risen, meaning that more than 2.7m Spanish children - one in three - lived in poverty or were at the risk of social exclusion in 2013.
School drop-out rates are now by far the highest in the EU, with 23.6% leaving education early.
Spain has the highest school dropout rates in the EU Photograph: Guardian Graphic/Eurostat
That, plus more data and graphics here
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.54pm GMT
block-time published-time 11.52am GMT
Brussels welcomes tougher budgets from France and Italy
Are France and Italy off the hook?
Both countries may have averted a fight with the European Commission over their budget deficits.
Under eurozone rules, countries must have their budgets vetted in Brussels to check whether they meet basic rules of the currency, for instance a budget deficit of no more than 3% of GDP by 2015.
The 2015 budget plans of France and Italy were both falling short.
But following pressure from the Commission, France has now promised extra spending cuts worth (EURO)3.6-(EURO)3.7bn (£2.8-2.9bn). French finance minister Michel Sapin wrote to the Commission on Monday, spelling out "additional measures", including more ambition on cutting its structural deficit target.
Italy has also made a last-minute promise of extra cuts worth (EURO)4.5bn (£3.5bn).
A European Commission spokesman today welcomed the "useful, constructive contributions on budget talks from Italy and France". Via Reuters
But analysts have said the changes do not add up to much.
Aurel BGC brokers economist Jean-Louis Mourier on France.
These are cosmetic changes aimed at responding to the Commission's demands with as little as possible. We might have 4.1% of (headline) deficit instead of 4.3% but we won't be at 3%.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.16pm GMT
block-time published-time 11.25am GMT
A Mahjong parlour in Hong Kong. Paul Yeung/Reuters Photograph: PAUL YEUNG/REUTERS
The Chinese authorities are clamping down on officials playing the ancient game of mahjong, as part of continuing anti-corruption drive that has hit the sales of luxury goods firms.
The People's Daily, a mouthpiece for the Communist party regime, accused officials for playing the game when they should be working.
The phenomenon of Communist officials going to rural retreats to have fun, play mahjong and poker... must resolutely stop.
The article called for an equally "resolute" end to government staff "spending public money to visit historical sites in the name of 'study', and then simply going to any old fun place."
AFP explains what the crackdown is about:
The commentary was the latest in a series of state-issued broadsides against official extravagance, as China's President Xi Jinping attempts to improve the Communist party's image in response to widespread anger over endemic corruption. The campaign has led to an unprecedented investigation into retired security czar Zhou Yongkang, though the vast majority of officials punished since Xi came to power have been from the government's lowest levels. The campaign against graft has been blamed for falling sales of luxury items, and hit business at expensive hotels and restaurants, according to reports.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.27am GMT
block-time published-time 11.05am GMT
European markets are up, with Italy and Germany's benchmark index leading the way.
Germany's DAX +1.39% at 9026 points
France's CAC40 +0.26% at 4107 points
Italy's FTSE MIB +1.66%% at 19.345 points
UK FTSE100 +0.44% at 6388 points
The markets have reversed yesterday's decline, mostly thanks to healthy corporate earnings lifting shares.
block-time published-time 10.43am GMT
The risk of deflation in Sweden has not disappeared, despite today's unprecedented decision to move to zero interest rates.
Jessica Hines at Capital Economics warns that Sweden may have to resort to stiffer measures, such as currency intervention to avoid deepening deflation and a Japan-style lost decade.
The Riksbank had little choice but to cut today. It has been roundly criticised for not responding quickly enough to the low level of inflation and a failure to act would have undermined its credibility further. Moreover, it would also have put upward pressure on the krona, which the Riksbank would not have wanted given that exporters are still struggling.
With the policy rate at zero, the Riksbank will need to start thinking about what action it might taken if inflation continues to be weaker than it has forecast.
block-time published-time 10.38am GMT
Climate change threat means most fossil fuels "unburnable" says BoE
The Bank of England is concerned that climate change could damage the earnings and solvency of the UK insurance industry.
The FT reports that the bank's Prudential Regulation Authority, has written to insurance companies asking them whether they have considered climate change could affect their investment portfolios.
Here is a flavour:
Scientists have been warning for years that greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels are driving warmer global temperatures and could increase the frequency of devastating natural disasters such as Typhoon Haiyan, which killed thousands of people when it ploughed into the Philippines last year.
But the Bank of England appears to be one of the first central banks to address potential climate risks for insurers.
The insurance industry is doubly exposed to such threats. First, it faces rising payouts to policy holders battered by natural catastrophes that have caused average global insured losses of $56bn a year over the past decade, according to Munich Re.
However, it also invests in assets that could be affected by such disasters, such as properties, and fossil fuel companies facing tougher government rules on greenhouse gas pollution, like those the US launched this year to reduce power plant emissions.
According to the paper, the bank also confirmed reports that governor Mark Carney told a World Bank seminar in October there was analysis showing most fossil fuel reserves are "unburnable" if the world is to avoid risky climate change.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.45am GMT
block-time published-time 10.27am GMT
Nice chart from Jamie McGeever at Reuters on why Sweden has embarked on zero interests.
Why Swedish interest rates have been cut to 0%. Inflation threatening to turn into deflation: pic.twitter.com/kvdTIJtoGo
- Jamie McGeever (@ReutersJamie) October 28, 2014
block-time published-time 10.21am GMT
Spare capacity in the electricity grid system has fallen, but the National Grid has said there is no risk of blackouts.
Allenheads, Northumberland. Alamy Photograph: Alamy
As my colleague Sean Farrell reports:
In its winter outlook, the operator of pipes and pylons said that electricity margins - the difference between peak demand and available supply - had fallen to 4.1% from 5% at peak periods last year because of planned generator closures, breakdowns and delays to new plants.
Gas supplies remain strong after last year's mild winter, with gas capacity higher than the maximum expected demand, National Grid said.
National Grid: no risk of winter blackouts
Energy Minister Matt Hancock has been touring the studios with the same message.
There will be secure energy supplies this winter. There will be no power cuts to householders. Of course, there may be bad weather and we have taken measures to ensure that the distribution networks are stronger than they were last winter...
He also said security of supply was more important than tackling climate change or cutting costs for consumers.
My view is that those three things aren't equal - cost, climate change and energy security. For me, energy security comes first because if you don't have secure supplies then the other two become completely second order.
Hancock quotes via PA
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.22am GMT
block-time published-time 10.00am GMT
Standard Chartered shares hit 5-yr low
Ouch. Shares in the Asia-focused bank Standard Chartered have slumped to a 5-year low, after the bank reported falling profits.
Standard Chartered's London-listed shares are down more than 9% to 993 pence this morning.
The bank surged ahead over the last decade thanks to high grow in China, India and South Korea, but now faces falling profits as a result of weakness in those economies. The bank also said it has rising compliance costs, in the wake of a failure of its money-laundering controls that led to a $300m fine.
Peter Thal Larsen of Reuters Breaking Views, says weaker [Asian] economies, rising expenses and bigger bad debts are all to blame.
Even with extra cost-cutting, it's too early to say when StanChart's fortunes will improve. Until the bottom line stabilises, investors will remains wary.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.23am GMT
block-time published-time 9.45am GMT
Sweden embarks on zero interest rates
Sweden's central bank explains that it cut interest rates to zero because inflation is too low.
The bank has a target of 2% inflation
The Swedish economy is relatively strong and economic activity is continuing to improve. But inflation is too low. The Executive Board of the Riksbank has therefore decided that monetary policy needs to be even more expansionary for inflation to rise towards the target of 2 per cent.
Despite the fact that both GDP and employment have increased at a relatively good rate over the last 12 months, inflation has continued to be lower than expected. The broad downturn in inflation and the repeated downward revisions to the inflation forecast imply that underlying inflationary pressures are very low and lower than previously assessed. This, taken together with lower inflation and a weaker development of economic activity abroad, means that it is expected to take longer for inflation to reach 2 per cent.
Market watchers have taken note.
To boldly go where no-one has gone before - zero rates at Riskbank - what housing bubble? #SEK
- Michael Hewson (@mhewson_CMC) October 28, 2014
Swedish central bank #Riksbank cuts interest rate to zero to fight deflation risk. Non eurozone BoE watching closely
- Joe Lynam BBC Biz (@BBC_Joe_Lynam) October 28, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.24am GMT
block-time published-time 9.35am GMT
Sweden's central bank has taken markets by surprise by slashing interest rates to zero, sending the Swedish krona to a four-year low against the dollar.
The Riksbank had been forecast to cut rates to 0.1% from 0.25%, but went the whole way and reduced them to nothing to help avoid the risk of deflation.
block-time published-time 9.16am GMT
Standard Chartered profits fall on slowing Asian growth
Asia-focused bank Standard Chartered has reported a 16% slide in profits, as the bank struggles to respond to slowing growth across the region and increased compliance costs.
Standard Chartered reported £1.5bn profits for its third quarter, down from £1.83bn the previous year.
The lender has also been hit by losses in South Korea, where it has been reorganising its business since 2011.
Peter Sands, Standard Chartered chief executive, said the bank was taking action to get back to profitable growth.
Whilst trading conditions remained subdued, we did see a modest return to year on year income growth during the quarter. We are executing our refreshed strategy, including reprioritising investments, exiting non-core businesses, de-risking certain portfolios and reallocating capital. To create more capacity for investment in the many opportunities in our markets, we are taking further action on costs, targeting more than US$400 million in productivity improvements for 2015.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 9.18am GMT
block-time published-time 9.03am GMT
Lloyds Banking Group- eight things we have learned from the results
block-time published-time 8.56am GMT
The UK's third-largest energy company BG Group reported a lower-than-expected fall in profits, hit by falling oil prices and falling production from its Egyptian refineries.
From Reuters
BG's total operating profit came to $1.3 billion in the third quarter, undershooting a company-provided consensus of $1.4 billion, as its Egyptian output halved compared with the previous year to 55,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day (boepd) due to its depleting reservoir.
In the third quarter BG sold its oil at an average of $104 per barrel, down from $112 the previous year, while its average UK gas price fell 17 percent to 37 pence per therm.
The oil and gas producer has however started to reap benefits of costly projects in Brazil and Australia.
BG's third-quarter revenue rose 4 percent to $4.6 billion as oil output from Brazil rose to more than 100,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day.
It is also on track to deliver its first liquefied natural gas (LNG) cargo from the Queensland Curtis LNG project by the end of the year.
BG also announced that they had appointed Helge Lund as chief executive. He replaces Chris Finlayson, who left earlier this year to join InterOil.
block-time published-time 8.38am GMT
Lloyds shares are down 1.15% to 74.7 pence this morning.
The FTSE100 as a whole has nudged up 0.6% to 6401 points.
block-time published-time 8.27am GMT
BP profits hurt by Russia problems
BP has been hit by a steep drop in revenues from its Russian partner Rosneft.
The oil company reported that underlying net income from Rosneft for its third quarter was $110m, against $808 m last year. The sharp drop off has been blamed on the depreciation of the rouble against the dollar and lower oil prices.
BP profits were in line with expectations at around $3bn, although lower than last year's $3.7bn. The oil major upped its dividend by 10 cents a share, a 5.3% increase on last year.
Bob Dudley, BP chief executive, said BP's operational momentum was delivering results.
Growing underlying production of oil and gas and a good downstream performance generated strong cash flow in the third quarter, despite lower oil prices. This keeps us well on track to hit our targets for 2014.
BP said western sanctions on Russia had had "no material impact" on its business.
During the quarter BP also hit a significant milestone, when compensation for the Deepwater Horizon spill reached $20bn. BP's total bill for the disaster is $43bn.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 8.28am GMT
block-time published-time 8.00am GMT
PPI scandal 'far from over'
More reaction on Lloyds
BREAKING: Unite calls for no compulsory redundancies over Lloyds job losses #MoreSoon
- Unite the union (@unitetheunion) October 28, 2014
Unite's Rob MacGregor: "These are deeply unsettling times for Lloyds staff." #MoreSoon
- Unite the union (@unitetheunion) October 28, 2014
From Which's executive director
The staggering PPI mis-selling bill continues. The extra provision announced by Lloyds today shows this scandal is far from over. @WhichNews
- Richard Lloyd (@RichardJLloyd) October 28, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 8.06am GMT
block-time published-time 7.50am GMT
Lloyds no longer aspires to be 'the last bank in town'
Lloyds bank will lose around 150 branches, although the company says that most customers will still have a bank within five miles.
This brings an end to Lloyds' pledge to be the last bank in town.
We are committed to maintaining or growing our share of branches and will optimise our network by consolidating mainly urban branches in overlapping locations. We anticipate this will lead to a net reduction of about 150 branches. Over 90 per cent of Lloyds and Bank of Scotland customers will continue to have a useable branch within five miles of their home, while the Halifax branch network will be maintained.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 7.54am GMT
block-time published-time 7.47am GMT
Here are some of the other headlines from the Lloyds announcement this morning, courtesy of Reuters.
Lloyds finance director expects bank to pass PRA stress tests
Lloyds finance director hopeful of paying 2014 dividend
Lloyds anticipates closing fewer branches than competitors
Lloyds says increased PPI provision due to increase in "reactive" complaints
block-time published-time 7.43am GMT
Unite warns on Lloyds job cuts
Here is how the Unite union has reacted to Lloyds job cuts - via the Guardian's City editor.
Unite on Lloyds jobs cuts: "The wallets of top executives at Lloyds should not be getting fat by forcing low paid workers onto the dole"
- Jill Treanor (@jilltreanor) October 28, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 7.51am GMT
block-time published-time 7.40am GMT
Summary
Good morning, and welcome to our rolling coverage of the world economy, the financial markets, the eurozone and the business world.
Lloyds Bank have announced they are cutting 9,000 jobs - in addition to the 45,000 that have gone since the 2008 bailout and rescue of HBOS.
Bailed out Lloyds Banking Group confirms 9,000 job cuts and 150 branch closures
- Jill Treanor (@jilltreanor) October 28, 2014
The bailed out lender, which is 24%-owned by the taxpayer, also revealed that it was putting aside a further £900m for to compensate customers for misselling PPI insurance policies, bringing the total bill to £11bn.
Here is how Lloyds announced the job losses:
Within the organisation, we will rebalance roles to reflect the evolving nature of the business and ensure we have the people and capabilities required for the transition to a more digitised, IT enabled business. We anticipate a reduction of approximately 9,000 full time roles across the business while building new capability in digital and IT.
Later this morning Lloyds boss António Horta-Osório will explain all, in a presentation to the City that will also set out a new three-year plan for technological change.
The banking industry faces more change in the next 10 years than it has seen in the last 200, according to Lord Blackwell, the chair Lloyds Bank.
From Lloyds statement:
Our plan outlines how we intend to deliver value and high quality experiences for customers alongside superior and sustainable financial performance within a prudent risk and conduct framework. We remain committed to Helping Britain Prosper*, supporting the UK economy and the communities in which we operate.
*Lloyds' capitalisation
We will also be delving into results from BP and BG, as well as looking ahead to the Federal Reserve's monthly meeting starting later today.
All that and more...
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 7.50am GMT
LOAD-DATE: October 29, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
475 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 28, 2014 Tuesday 2:44 PM GMT
Lloyds bill for missold PPI rises to £11bn - business live;
Lloyds confirms plan to axe 9,000 jobsBP profits fall on Russia troubleFederal Reserve expected to end QE financial stimulus programme
BYLINE: Jennifer Rankin
SECTION: BUSINESS
LENGTH: 4051 words
block-time published-time 2.44pm GMT
David Cameron has been urged to take a stand against modern-day slavery and the abuse of migrant workers in Qatar.
As David Cameron prepares to meet the Emir of Qatar, the Trade Union Congress said the prime minister should use his influence to seek to end the abuse of migrant workers in the Gulf state.
In an open letter to 10 Downing Street, the TUC called on Cameron to press the Emir of Qatar to take action against slavery and abuse of construction workers.
Conditions for foreign workers in Qatar, including those building the infrastructure needed for the 2022 World Cup, continue to be of grave concern.
Figures confirmed by Qatar show that 964 workers from India and Nepal alone died between 2012 and 2013, a rate of 40 every month, with unsafe working and living conditions equally to blame. Many other workers are left for months without pay. These workers are completely trapped by the sponsorship system known as kafala which gives employers complete power to grant or deny workers the right to leave Qatar.
The TUC wants to see an end to the kafala system, freedom for workers to join unions, and guarantees that the government will only use ethical recruitment companies.
TUC General Secretary Frances O'Grady said:
Silence from David Cameron will be taken as support for what is effectively slavery in Qatar. Britain must be part of the international campaign to ensure that Qatar improves living and working conditions for migrant workers.
block-time published-time 2.02pm GMT
Look ahead: US Fed meeting
Is it time to say goodbye to US financial stimulus?
The US Federal Reserve's interest-rate setting committee begins a two-day meeting, expected to conclude tomorrow with an announcement ending its asset-buying programme.
The Fed has purchased $1.6 trillion in Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities since September 2012, which has helped keep US interest rates down, allowing the economy to recover.
When Fed policymakers hinted they might end financial stimulus in 2013, investors threw taper tantrums, selling off equities and dumping foreign currencies.
Now the mood has changed. The consensus among market watchers is that the Fed will announce an end to its asset-buying programme, quantitative easing, when its meeting wraps up on Wednesday. The central bank is also expected to issue guidance on the timing of interest-rate rises.
All this comes just ahead of an update on third-quarter US economic growth on Friday, which is expected to show growth of 3.1%.
Economists are split on exactly when the Fed will wind up its bond-buying programme, according to a Wall Street Journal poll.
About two-fifths of economists-39%-expect the Fed's bond purchases to end entirely in the third quarter of 2014. About one-third-34%-expect the central bank to halt the program in the fourth quarter, and 19% expect the end to come in early 2015.
Economists are equally divided on when the Fed will begin raising rates.
Some Fed officials are reported to want to stand by an earlier pledge not to raise rates until mid 2015. Others may are said to want to drop any reference to time, because they think it depends on the economic data.
Janet Yellen, Federal Reserve chairman, speaks at a recent meeting of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Susan Walsh/AP Photograph: Susan Walsh/AP
Whatever they decide the consequences are likely to reverberate in markets around the world.
Nicholas Ebisch, currency analyst at Caxton FX, expects "profound effects" on currency and stock markets in the US and around the world.
The dollar is stable at the moment and has maintained a strong position since its steady appreciation in the second half of the year, but any sign of prolonging the QE programme, or extending low interest rates for longer should damage the greenback.
Further reading
Market Watch: Fed will hold market's hand as it ends QE3
Wall Street Journal: Economists split on start of Fed pullback
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 2.21pm GMT
block-time published-time 1.14pm GMT
"All options" considered to aid Europe's oldest bank
In Rome, discussions about the fate of Europe's oldest bank are underway.
The Palazzo Salimbeni, site of Monte dei Paschi bank in Siena. Carlo Ferraro/EPA Photograph: CARLO FERRARO/EPA
Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena, founded in 1472, has been in the spotlight after failing European banking stress tests. Regulators said it needed to raise (EURO)2.1 bn ($2.7 billion) to meet capital thresholds - a key benchmark of the bank's financial health.
According to Reuters, Italy's Treasury may extend repayment deadlines on hundreds of millions of euros in state aid to help troubled lender.
Officials, who declined to be cited by name, said Monte dei Paschi Chairman Alessandro Profumo and Chief Executive Fabrizio Viola had held meetings in the Economy Ministry on Monday to seek options for the bank, after it failed European Central Bank stress tests.
It could be helped via Monti bonds, which are named after former prime minister Mario Monti, rather than the bank.
The person close to the situation gave no details of the talks but said nothing had been ruled out, including options connected with repayment of 750 million euros of state aid, offered in the form of "Monti Bonds" in 2013 to prop up the bank after a previous crisis.
Asked whether a delay in the repayment schedule or converting the loan into share capital in the bank was being looked at, the person said: "All options are under consideration. The bank is working on it. The system is solid.
No comment was available from Monte dei Paschi.
Shares in the bank are now up 2.23%, after yesterday's dramatic losses when the bank saw a quarter of its value wiped out.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.15pm GMT
block-time published-time 12.54pm GMT
Over on the Guardian's data blog, new figures reveal how Spain's years of recession have damaged the country.
Child poverty, already above the EU average, has risen, meaning that more than 2.7m Spanish children - one in three - lived in poverty or were at the risk of social exclusion in 2013.
School drop-out rates are now by far the highest in the EU, with 23.6% leaving education early.
Spain has the highest school dropout rates in the EU Photograph: Guardian Graphic/Eurostat
That, plus more data and graphics here
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 12.54pm GMT
block-time published-time 11.52am GMT
Brussels welcomes tougher budgets from France and Italy
Are France and Italy off the hook?
Both countries may have averted a fight with the European Commission over their budget deficits.
Under eurozone rules, countries must have their budgets vetted in Brussels to check whether they meet basic rules of the currency, for instance a budget deficit of no more than 3% of GDP by 2015.
The 2015 budget plans of France and Italy were both falling short.
But following pressure from the Commission, France has now promised extra spending cuts worth (EURO)3.6-(EURO)3.7bn (£2.8-2.9bn). French finance minister Michel Sapin wrote to the Commission on Monday, spelling out "additional measures", including more ambition on cutting its structural deficit target.
Italy has also made a last-minute promise of extra cuts worth (EURO)4.5bn (£3.5bn).
A European Commission spokesman today welcomed the "useful, constructive contributions on budget talks from Italy and France". Via Reuters
But analysts have said the changes do not add up to much.
Aurel BGC brokers economist Jean-Louis Mourier on France.
These are cosmetic changes aimed at responding to the Commission's demands with as little as possible. We might have 4.1% of (headline) deficit instead of 4.3% but we won't be at 3%.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 1.16pm GMT
block-time published-time 11.25am GMT
A Mahjong parlour in Hong Kong. Paul Yeung/Reuters Photograph: PAUL YEUNG/REUTERS
The Chinese authorities are clamping down on officials playing the ancient game of mahjong, as part of continuing anti-corruption drive that has hit the sales of luxury goods firms.
The People's Daily, a mouthpiece for the Communist party regime, accused officials for playing the game when they should be working.
The phenomenon of Communist officials going to rural retreats to have fun, play mahjong and poker... must resolutely stop.
The article called for an equally "resolute" end to government staff "spending public money to visit historical sites in the name of 'study', and then simply going to any old fun place."
AFP explains what the crackdown is about:
The commentary was the latest in a series of state-issued broadsides against official extravagance, as China's President Xi Jinping attempts to improve the Communist party's image in response to widespread anger over endemic corruption. The campaign has led to an unprecedented investigation into retired security czar Zhou Yongkang, though the vast majority of officials punished since Xi came to power have been from the government's lowest levels. The campaign against graft has been blamed for falling sales of luxury items, and hit business at expensive hotels and restaurants, according to reports.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.27am GMT
block-time published-time 11.05am GMT
European markets are up, with Italy and Germany's benchmark index leading the way.
Germany's DAX +1.39% at 9026 points
France's CAC40 +0.26% at 4107 points
Italy's FTSE MIB +1.66%% at 19.345 points
UK FTSE100 +0.44% at 6388 points
The markets have reversed yesterday's decline, mostly thanks to healthy corporate earnings lifting shares.
block-time published-time 10.43am GMT
The risk of deflation in Sweden has not disappeared, despite today's unprecedented decision to move to zero interest rates.
Jessica Hines at Capital Economics warns that Sweden may have to resort to stiffer measures, such as currency intervention to avoid deepening deflation and a Japan-style lost decade.
The Riksbank had little choice but to cut today. It has been roundly criticised for not responding quickly enough to the low level of inflation and a failure to act would have undermined its credibility further. Moreover, it would also have put upward pressure on the krona, which the Riksbank would not have wanted given that exporters are still struggling.
With the policy rate at zero, the Riksbank will need to start thinking about what action it might taken if inflation continues to be weaker than it has forecast.
block-time published-time 10.38am GMT
Climate change threat means most fossil fuels "unburnable" says BoE
The Bank of England is concerned that climate change could damage the earnings and solvency of the UK insurance industry.
The FT reports that the bank's Prudential Regulation Authority, has written to insurance companies asking them whether they have considered climate change could affect their investment portfolios.
Here is a flavour:
Scientists have been warning for years that greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels are driving warmer global temperatures and could increase the frequency of devastating natural disasters such as Typhoon Haiyan, which killed thousands of people when it ploughed into the Philippines last year.
But the Bank of England appears to be one of the first central banks to address potential climate risks for insurers.
The insurance industry is doubly exposed to such threats. First, it faces rising payouts to policy holders battered by natural catastrophes that have caused average global insured losses of $56bn a year over the past decade, according to Munich Re.
However, it also invests in assets that could be affected by such disasters, such as properties, and fossil fuel companies facing tougher government rules on greenhouse gas pollution, like those the US launched this year to reduce power plant emissions.
According to the paper, the bank also confirmed reports that governor Mark Carney told a World Bank seminar in October there was analysis showing most fossil fuel reserves are "unburnable" if the world is to avoid risky climate change.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.45am GMT
block-time published-time 10.27am GMT
Nice chart from Jamie McGeever at Reuters on why Sweden has embarked on zero interests.
Why Swedish interest rates have been cut to 0%. Inflation threatening to turn into deflation: pic.twitter.com/kvdTIJtoGo
- Jamie McGeever (@ReutersJamie) October 28, 2014
block-time published-time 10.21am GMT
Spare capacity in the electricity grid system has fallen, but the National Grid has said there is no risk of blackouts.
Allenheads, Northumberland. Alamy Photograph: Alamy
As my colleague Sean Farrell reports:
In its winter outlook, the operator of pipes and pylons said that electricity margins - the difference between peak demand and available supply - had fallen to 4.1% from 5% at peak periods last year because of planned generator closures, breakdowns and delays to new plants.
Gas supplies remain strong after last year's mild winter, with gas capacity higher than the maximum expected demand, National Grid said.
National Grid: no risk of winter blackouts
Energy Minister Matt Hancock has been touring the studios with the same message.
There will be secure energy supplies this winter. There will be no power cuts to householders. Of course, there may be bad weather and we have taken measures to ensure that the distribution networks are stronger than they were last winter...
He also said security of supply was more important than tackling climate change or cutting costs for consumers.
My view is that those three things aren't equal - cost, climate change and energy security. For me, energy security comes first because if you don't have secure supplies then the other two become completely second order.
Hancock quotes via PA
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.22am GMT
block-time published-time 10.00am GMT
Standard Chartered shares hit 5-yr low
Ouch. Shares in the Asia-focused bank Standard Chartered have slumped to a 5-year low, after the bank reported falling profits.
Standard Chartered's London-listed shares are down more than 9% to 993 pence this morning.
The bank surged ahead over the last decade thanks to high grow in China, India and South Korea, but now faces falling profits as a result of weakness in those economies. The bank also said it has rising compliance costs, in the wake of a failure of its money-laundering controls that led to a $300m fine.
Peter Thal Larsen of Reuters Breaking Views, says weaker [Asian] economies, rising expenses and bigger bad debts are all to blame.
Even with extra cost-cutting, it's too early to say when StanChart's fortunes will improve. Until the bottom line stabilises, investors will remains wary.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.23am GMT
block-time published-time 9.45am GMT
Sweden embarks on zero interest rates
Sweden's central bank explains that it cut interest rates to zero because inflation is too low.
The bank has a target of 2% inflation
The Swedish economy is relatively strong and economic activity is continuing to improve. But inflation is too low. The Executive Board of the Riksbank has therefore decided that monetary policy needs to be even more expansionary for inflation to rise towards the target of 2 per cent.
Despite the fact that both GDP and employment have increased at a relatively good rate over the last 12 months, inflation has continued to be lower than expected. The broad downturn in inflation and the repeated downward revisions to the inflation forecast imply that underlying inflationary pressures are very low and lower than previously assessed. This, taken together with lower inflation and a weaker development of economic activity abroad, means that it is expected to take longer for inflation to reach 2 per cent.
Market watchers have taken note.
To boldly go where no-one has gone before - zero rates at Riskbank - what housing bubble? #SEK
- Michael Hewson (@mhewson_CMC) October 28, 2014
Swedish central bank #Riksbank cuts interest rate to zero to fight deflation risk. Non eurozone BoE watching closely
- Joe Lynam BBC Biz (@BBC_Joe_Lynam) October 28, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.24am GMT
block-time published-time 9.35am GMT
Sweden's central bank has taken markets by surprise by slashing interest rates to zero, sending the Swedish krona to a four-year low against the dollar.
The Riksbank had been forecast to cut rates to 0.1% from 0.25%, but went the whole way and reduced them to nothing to help avoid the risk of deflation.
block-time published-time 9.16am GMT
Standard Chartered profits fall on slowing Asian growth
Asia-focused bank Standard Chartered has reported a 16% slide in profits, as the bank struggles to respond to slowing growth across the region and increased compliance costs.
Standard Chartered reported £1.5bn profits for its third quarter, down from £1.83bn the previous year.
The lender has also been hit by losses in South Korea, where it has been reorganising its business since 2011.
Peter Sands, Standard Chartered chief executive, said the bank was taking action to get back to profitable growth.
Whilst trading conditions remained subdued, we did see a modest return to year on year income growth during the quarter. We are executing our refreshed strategy, including reprioritising investments, exiting non-core businesses, de-risking certain portfolios and reallocating capital. To create more capacity for investment in the many opportunities in our markets, we are taking further action on costs, targeting more than US$400 million in productivity improvements for 2015.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 9.18am GMT
block-time published-time 9.03am GMT
Lloyds Banking Group- eight things we have learned from the results
block-time published-time 8.56am GMT
The UK's third-largest energy company BG Group reported a lower-than-expected fall in profits, hit by falling oil prices and falling production from its Egyptian refineries.
From Reuters
BG's total operating profit came to $1.3 billion in the third quarter, undershooting a company-provided consensus of $1.4 billion, as its Egyptian output halved compared with the previous year to 55,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day (boepd) due to its depleting reservoir.
In the third quarter BG sold its oil at an average of $104 per barrel, down from $112 the previous year, while its average UK gas price fell 17 percent to 37 pence per therm.
The oil and gas producer has however started to reap benefits of costly projects in Brazil and Australia.
BG's third-quarter revenue rose 4 percent to $4.6 billion as oil output from Brazil rose to more than 100,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day.
It is also on track to deliver its first liquefied natural gas (LNG) cargo from the Queensland Curtis LNG project by the end of the year.
BG also announced that they had appointed Helge Lund as chief executive. He replaces Chris Finlayson, who left earlier this year to join InterOil.
block-time published-time 8.38am GMT
Lloyds shares are down 1.15% to 74.7 pence this morning.
The FTSE100 as a whole has nudged up 0.6% to 6401 points.
block-time published-time 8.27am GMT
BP profits hurt by Russia problems
BP has been hit by a steep drop in revenues from its Russian partner Rosneft.
The oil company reported that underlying net income from Rosneft for its third quarter was $110m, against $808 m last year. The sharp drop off has been blamed on the depreciation of the rouble against the dollar and lower oil prices.
BP profits were in line with expectations at around $3bn, although lower than last year's $3.7bn. The oil major upped its dividend by 10 cents a share, a 5.3% increase on last year.
Bob Dudley, BP chief executive, said BP's operational momentum was delivering results.
Growing underlying production of oil and gas and a good downstream performance generated strong cash flow in the third quarter, despite lower oil prices. This keeps us well on track to hit our targets for 2014.
BP said western sanctions on Russia had had "no material impact" on its business.
During the quarter BP also hit a significant milestone, when compensation for the Deepwater Horizon spill reached $20bn. BP's total bill for the disaster is $43bn.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 8.28am GMT
block-time published-time 8.00am GMT
PPI scandal 'far from over'
More reaction on Lloyds
BREAKING: Unite calls for no compulsory redundancies over Lloyds job losses #MoreSoon
- Unite the union (@unitetheunion) October 28, 2014
Unite's Rob MacGregor: "These are deeply unsettling times for Lloyds staff." #MoreSoon
- Unite the union (@unitetheunion) October 28, 2014
From Which's executive director
The staggering PPI mis-selling bill continues. The extra provision announced by Lloyds today shows this scandal is far from over. @WhichNews
- Richard Lloyd (@RichardJLloyd) October 28, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 8.06am GMT
block-time published-time 7.50am GMT
Lloyds no longer aspires to be 'the last bank in town'
Lloyds bank will lose around 150 branches, although the company says that most customers will still have a bank within five miles.
This brings an end to Lloyds' pledge to be the last bank in town.
We are committed to maintaining or growing our share of branches and will optimise our network by consolidating mainly urban branches in overlapping locations. We anticipate this will lead to a net reduction of about 150 branches. Over 90 per cent of Lloyds and Bank of Scotland customers will continue to have a useable branch within five miles of their home, while the Halifax branch network will be maintained.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 7.54am GMT
block-time published-time 7.47am GMT
Here are some of the other headlines from the Lloyds announcement this morning, courtesy of Reuters.
Lloyds finance director expects bank to pass PRA stress tests
Lloyds finance director hopeful of paying 2014 dividend
Lloyds anticipates closing fewer branches than competitors
Lloyds says increased PPI provision due to increase in "reactive" complaints
block-time published-time 7.43am GMT
Unite warns on Lloyds job cuts
Here is how the Unite union has reacted to Lloyds job cuts - via the Guardian's City editor.
Unite on Lloyds jobs cuts: "The wallets of top executives at Lloyds should not be getting fat by forcing low paid workers onto the dole"
- Jill Treanor (@jilltreanor) October 28, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 7.51am GMT
block-time published-time 7.40am GMT
Summary
Good morning, and welcome to our rolling coverage of the world economy, the financial markets, the eurozone and the business world.
Lloyds Bank have announced they are cutting 9,000 jobs - in addition to the 45,000 that have gone since the 2008 bailout and rescue of HBOS.
Bailed out Lloyds Banking Group confirms 9,000 job cuts and 150 branch closures
- Jill Treanor (@jilltreanor) October 28, 2014
The bailed out lender, which is 24%-owned by the taxpayer, also revealed that it was putting aside a further £900m for to compensate customers for misselling PPI insurance policies, bringing the total bill to £11bn.
Here is how Lloyds announced the job losses:
Within the organisation, we will rebalance roles to reflect the evolving nature of the business and ensure we have the people and capabilities required for the transition to a more digitised, IT enabled business. We anticipate a reduction of approximately 9,000 full time roles across the business while building new capability in digital and IT.
Later this morning Lloyds boss António Horta-Osório will explain all, in a presentation to the City that will also set out a new three-year plan for technological change.
The banking industry faces more change in the next 10 years than it has seen in the last 200, according to Lord Blackwell, the chair Lloyds Bank.
From Lloyds statement:
Our plan outlines how we intend to deliver value and high quality experiences for customers alongside superior and sustainable financial performance within a prudent risk and conduct framework. We remain committed to Helping Britain Prosper*, supporting the UK economy and the communities in which we operate.
*Lloyds' capitalisation
We will also be delving into results from BP and BG, as well as looking ahead to the Federal Reserve's monthly meeting starting later today.
All that and more...
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 7.50am GMT
LOAD-DATE: October 28, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
476 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 28, 2014 Tuesday 1:00 PM GMT
Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders;
"I'm not a scientist" has become the latest popular response among Republican politicians for refusal to address climate change
BYLINE: Dana Nuccitelli
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 824 words
Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is hoping to become the Senate Majority Leader after the forthcoming election on November 4th, although despite hailing from conservative Kentucky, McConnell is in a very tight race. The Cincinnati Enquirer editorial board recently had a long discussion with McConnell and tried to pin him down on the subject of global warming.
McConnell wouldn't directly answer whether he believes in climate change. Enquirer's editorial board volleyed several questions about what it would take to convince him of climate change. He turned the subject every time to jobs. McConnell said he believes imposing regulations to reduce greenhouse gases blamed for climate change would only hurt America and not mitigate what other countries, such as China, are doing... "We can debate this forever," McConnell said. "George Will had a column in the last year or so pointing out that in the 70s, we were concerned the ice age was coming. I'm not a scientist. I'm interested in protecting Kentucky's economy."
Leaving aside McConnell's reference to the 1970s ice age myth, the cop-out about not being a scientist is a strange and dangerous one. Most members of Congress aren't scientists, or doctors, or military experts, or teachers, and yet they set our country's science, health care, defense, and education policy. Usually they do this by listening to the experts in each subject, which is the smart approach.
For example, as Lee Papa has pointed out, McConnell had no hesitations in expressing his opinions about dealing with the threat of Ebola and deferring to the experts at the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
I'm not an expert on this, but it strikes me that it would be a good idea to discontinue flights into the United States from that part of the world... I think we ought to listen to what the CDC thinks they need either in terms of financing or certainly they'll decide the procedures for travel and all the rest. I think we need to follow the advice of the experts who know how to fight scourges like this
These comments stand in stark contrast to McConnell's unwillingness to take a position on human-caused global warming, or to listen to the climate scientist experts on the subject.
McConnell is far from alone - this refrain has become one of the most popular responses among Republican politicians when asked about the climate. "I'm not a scientist" is used to abdicate responsibility for mitigating the immense risks posed by climate change. This abdication would be considered unacceptable in the face of other threats like ISIS and Ebola, and the same should be true for global warming.
When it comes to climate change, the expert consensus is clear. Humans are causing global warming, and the resulting climate changes ( more damaging extreme weather, for example) on the whole are harmful and dangerous. There are ways to reduce carbon pollution at a lower cost than paying for the immense damages caused by unabated climate change. In fact, there are small government, free market solutions that appeal to political conservatives and would reduce carbon pollution while growing the economy.
The good news is that the Democratic Party is taking climate change seriously. President Obama has shown strong leadership on the issue in his second term, Democratic Senators are drawing increasing attention to it, and many Democratic candidates running for office are speaking up about the need for climate action. Climate Hawks Vote has a good list of those candidates.
Unfortunately, many Republican politicians receive substantial campaign funding from fossil fuel companies. Many also rely on the most conservative Americans as their voting base, and those voters have been misinformed about climate change by the conservative media.
Because of that media bias, climate change is treated as a political, cultural, and ideological topic in the United States instead of a scientific and risk management issue. In the rare case where Republican politicians show responsible leadership in trying to tackle global warming, their jobs are threatened. Thus rather than showing leadership to address our greatest long-term threat, Republican politicians resort to abdicating responsibility.
However, as Neal deGrasse Tyson says,
The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.
The consequences of climate change are becoming more and more undeniable. It's only a matter of time before climate denial becomes a losing political position, and the Republican Party pays the price for its years of obstructing climate policies. The question is whether anyone in the party will step up and demonstrate responsible leadership before it's too late for the GOP and the climate.
LOAD-DATE: October 28, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
477 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 28, 2014 Tuesday 11:57 AM GMT
Lloyds bill for missold PPI rises to £11bn - business live;
Lloyds confirms plan to axe 9,000 jobsBP profits fall on Russia troubleFederal Reserve meeting begins today
BYLINE: Jennifer Rankin
SECTION: BUSINESS
LENGTH: 2966 words
block-time published-time 11.52am GMT
Are France and Italy off the hook?
Both countries may have averted a fight with the European Commission over their budget deficits.
Under eurozone rules, countries must have their budgets vetted in Brussels to check whether they meet basic rules of the currency, for instance a budget deficit of no more than 3% of GDP by 2015.
The 2015 budget plans of France and Italy were both falling short.
But following pressure from the Commission, France has now promised extra spending cuts worth (EURO)3.6-(EURO)3.7bn (£2.8-2.9bn). French finance minister Michel Sapin wrote to the Commission on Monday, spelling out "additional measures", including more ambition on cutting its structural deficit target.
Italy has also made a last-minute promise of extra cuts worth (EURO)4.5bn (£3.5bn).
A European Commission spokesman today welcomed the "useful, constructive contributions on budget talks from Italy and France". Via Reuters
But analysts have said the changes do not add up to much.
Aurel BGC brokers economist Jean-Louis Mourier on France.
These are cosmetic changes aimed at responding to the Commission's demands with as little as possible. We might have 4.1% of (headline) deficit instead of 4.3% but we won't be at 3%.
block-time published-time 11.25am GMT
A Mahjong parlour in Hong Kong. Paul Yeung/Reuters Photograph: PAUL YEUNG/REUTERS
The Chinese authorities are clamping down on officials playing the ancient game of mahjong, as part of continuing anti-corruption drive that has hit the sales of luxury goods firms.
The People's Daily, a mouthpiece for the Communist party regime, accused officials for playing the game when they should be working.
The phenomenon of Communist officials going to rural retreats to have fun, play mahjong and poker... must resolutely stop.
The article called for an equally "resolute" end to government staff "spending public money to visit historical sites in the name of 'study', and then simply going to any old fun place."
AFP explains what the crackdown is about:
The commentary was the latest in a series of state-issued broadsides against official extravagance, as China's President Xi Jinping attempts to improve the Communist party's image in response to widespread anger over endemic corruption. The campaign has led to an unprecedented investigation into retired security czar Zhou Yongkang, though the vast majority of officials punished since Xi came to power have been from the government's lowest levels. The campaign against graft has been blamed for falling sales of luxury items, and hit business at expensive hotels and restaurants, according to reports.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 11.27am GMT
block-time published-time 11.05am GMT
European markets are up, with Italy and Germany's benchmark index leading the way.
Germany's DAX +1.39% at 9026 points
France's CAC40 +0.26% at 4107 points
Italy's FTSE MIB +1.66%% at 19.345 points
UK FTSE100 +0.44% at 6388 points
The markets have reversed yesterday's decline, mostly thanks to healthy corporate earnings lifting shares.
block-time published-time 10.43am GMT
The risk of deflation in Sweden has not disappeared, despite today's unprecedented decision to move to zero interest rates.
Jessica Hines at Capital Economics warns that Sweden may have to resort to stiffer measures, such as currency intervention to avoid deepening deflation and a Japan-style lost decade.
The Riksbank had little choice but to cut today. It has been roundly criticised for not responding quickly enough to the low level of inflation and a failure to act would have undermined its credibility further. Moreover, it would also have put upward pressure on the krona, which the Riksbank would not have wanted given that exporters are still struggling.
With the policy rate at zero, the Riksbank will need to start thinking about what action it might taken if inflation continues to be weaker than it has forecast.
block-time published-time 10.38am GMT
Climate change threat means most fossil fuels "unburnable" says BoE
The Bank of England is concerned that climate change could damage the earnings and solvency of the UK insurance industry.
The FT reports that the bank's Prudential Regulation Authority, has written to insurance companies asking them whether they have considered climate change could affect their investment portfolios.
Here is a flavour:
Scientists have been warning for years that greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels are driving warmer global temperatures and could increase the frequency of devastating natural disasters such as Typhoon Haiyan, which killed thousands of people when it ploughed into the Philippines last year.
But the Bank of England appears to be one of the first central banks to address potential climate risks for insurers.
The insurance industry is doubly exposed to such threats. First, it faces rising payouts to policy holders battered by natural catastrophes that have caused average global insured losses of $56bn a year over the past decade, according to Munich Re.
However, it also invests in assets that could be affected by such disasters, such as properties, and fossil fuel companies facing tougher government rules on greenhouse gas pollution, like those the US launched this year to reduce power plant emissions.
According to the paper, the bank also confirmed reports that governor Mark Carney told a World Bank seminar in October there was analysis showing most fossil fuel reserves are "unburnable" if the world is to avoid risky climate change.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.45am GMT
block-time published-time 10.27am GMT
Nice chart from Jamie McGeever at Reuters on why Sweden has embarked on zero interests.
Why Swedish interest rates have been cut to 0%. Inflation threatening to turn into deflation: pic.twitter.com/kvdTIJtoGo
- Jamie McGeever (@ReutersJamie) October 28, 2014
block-time published-time 10.21am GMT
Spare capacity in the electricity grid system has fallen, but the National Grid has said there is no risk of blackouts.
Allenheads, Northumberland. Alamy Photograph: Alamy
As my colleague Sean Farrell reports:
In its winter outlook, the operator of pipes and pylons said that electricity margins - the difference between peak demand and available supply - had fallen to 4.1% from 5% at peak periods last year because of planned generator closures, breakdowns and delays to new plants.
Gas supplies remain strong after last year's mild winter, with gas capacity higher than the maximum expected demand, National Grid said.
National Grid: no risk of winter blackouts
Energy Minister Matt Hancock has been touring the studios with the same message.
There will be secure energy supplies this winter. There will be no power cuts to householders. Of course, there may be bad weather and we have taken measures to ensure that the distribution networks are stronger than they were last winter...
He also said security of supply was more important than tackling climate change or cutting costs for consumers.
My view is that those three things aren't equal - cost, climate change and energy security. For me, energy security comes first because if you don't have secure supplies then the other two become completely second order.
Hancock quotes via PA
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.22am GMT
block-time published-time 10.00am GMT
Standard Chartered shares hit 5-yr low
Ouch. Shares in the Asia-focused bank Standard Chartered have slumped to a 5-year low, after the bank reported falling profits.
Standard Chartered's London-listed shares are down more than 9% to 993 pence this morning.
The bank surged ahead over the last decade thanks to high grow in China, India and South Korea, but now faces falling profits as a result of weakness in those economies. The bank also said it has rising compliance costs, in the wake of a failure of its money-laundering controls that led to a $300m fine.
Peter Thal Larsen of Reuters Breaking Views, says weaker [Asian] economies, rising expenses and bigger bad debts are all to blame.
Even with extra cost-cutting, it's too early to say when StanChart's fortunes will improve. Until the bottom line stabilises, investors will remains wary.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.23am GMT
block-time published-time 9.45am GMT
Sweden embarks on zero interest rates
Sweden's central bank explains that it cut interest rates to zero because inflation is too low.
The bank has a target of 2% inflation
The Swedish economy is relatively strong and economic activity is continuing to improve. But inflation is too low. The Executive Board of the Riksbank has therefore decided that monetary policy needs to be even more expansionary for inflation to rise towards the target of 2 per cent.
Despite the fact that both GDP and employment have increased at a relatively good rate over the last 12 months, inflation has continued to be lower than expected. The broad downturn in inflation and the repeated downward revisions to the inflation forecast imply that underlying inflationary pressures are very low and lower than previously assessed. This, taken together with lower inflation and a weaker development of economic activity abroad, means that it is expected to take longer for inflation to reach 2 per cent.
Market watchers have taken note.
To boldly go where no-one has gone before - zero rates at Riskbank - what housing bubble? #SEK
- Michael Hewson (@mhewson_CMC) October 28, 2014
Swedish central bank #Riksbank cuts interest rate to zero to fight deflation risk. Non eurozone BoE watching closely
- Joe Lynam BBC Biz (@BBC_Joe_Lynam) October 28, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 10.24am GMT
block-time published-time 9.35am GMT
Sweden's central bank has taken markets by surprise by slashing interest rates to zero, sending the Swedish krona to a four-year low against the dollar.
The Riksbank had been forecast to cut rates to 0.1% from 0.25%, but went the whole way and reduced them to nothing to help avoid the risk of deflation.
block-time published-time 9.16am GMT
Standard Chartered profits fall on slowing Asian growth
Asia-focused bank Standard Chartered has reported a 16% slide in profits, as the bank struggles to respond to slowing growth across the region and increased compliance costs.
Standard Chartered reported £1.5bn profits for its third quarter, down from £1.83bn the previous year.
The lender has also been hit by losses in South Korea, where it has been reorganising its business since 2011.
Peter Sands, Standard Chartered chief executive, said the bank was taking action to get back to profitable growth.
Whilst trading conditions remained subdued, we did see a modest return to year on year income growth during the quarter. We are executing our refreshed strategy, including reprioritising investments, exiting non-core businesses, de-risking certain portfolios and reallocating capital. To create more capacity for investment in the many opportunities in our markets, we are taking further action on costs, targeting more than US$400 million in productivity improvements for 2015.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 9.18am GMT
block-time published-time 9.03am GMT
Lloyds Banking Group- eight things we have learned from the results
block-time published-time 8.56am GMT
The UK's third-largest energy company BG Group reported a lower-than-expected fall in profits, hit by falling oil prices and falling production from its Egyptian refineries.
From Reuters
BG's total operating profit came to $1.3 billion in the third quarter, undershooting a company-provided consensus of $1.4 billion, as its Egyptian output halved compared with the previous year to 55,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day (boepd) due to its depleting reservoir.
In the third quarter BG sold its oil at an average of $104 per barrel, down from $112 the previous year, while its average UK gas price fell 17 percent to 37 pence per therm.
The oil and gas producer has however started to reap benefits of costly projects in Brazil and Australia.
BG's third-quarter revenue rose 4 percent to $4.6 billion as oil output from Brazil rose to more than 100,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day.
It is also on track to deliver its first liquefied natural gas (LNG) cargo from the Queensland Curtis LNG project by the end of the year.
BG also announced that they had appointed Helge Lund as chief executive. He replaces Chris Finlayson, who left earlier this year to join InterOil.
block-time published-time 8.38am GMT
Lloyds shares are down 1.15% to 74.7 pence this morning.
The FTSE100 as a whole has nudged up 0.6% to 6401 points.
block-time published-time 8.27am GMT
BP profits hurt by Russia problems
BP has been hit by a steep drop in revenues from its Russian partner Rosneft.
The oil company reported that underlying net income from Rosneft for its third quarter was $110m, against $808 m last year. The sharp drop off has been blamed on the depreciation of the rouble against the dollar and lower oil prices.
BP profits were in line with expectations at around $3bn, although lower than last year's $3.7bn. The oil major upped its dividend by 10 cents a share, a 5.3% increase on last year.
Bob Dudley, BP chief executive, said BP's operational momentum was delivering results.
Growing underlying production of oil and gas and a good downstream performance generated strong cash flow in the third quarter, despite lower oil prices. This keeps us well on track to hit our targets for 2014.
BP said western sanctions on Russia had had "no material impact" on its business.
During the quarter BP also hit a significant milestone, when compensation for the Deepwater Horizon spill reached $20bn. BP's total bill for the disaster is $43bn.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 8.28am GMT
block-time published-time 8.00am GMT
PPI scandal 'far from over'
More reaction on Lloyds
BREAKING: Unite calls for no compulsory redundancies over Lloyds job losses #MoreSoon
- Unite the union (@unitetheunion) October 28, 2014
Unite's Rob MacGregor: "These are deeply unsettling times for Lloyds staff." #MoreSoon
- Unite the union (@unitetheunion) October 28, 2014
From Which's executive director
The staggering PPI mis-selling bill continues. The extra provision announced by Lloyds today shows this scandal is far from over. @WhichNews
- Richard Lloyd (@RichardJLloyd) October 28, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 8.06am GMT
block-time published-time 7.50am GMT
Lloyds no longer aspires to be 'the last bank in town'
Lloyds bank will lose around 150 branches, although the company says that most customers will still have a bank within five miles.
This brings an end to Lloyds' pledge to be the last bank in town.
We are committed to maintaining or growing our share of branches and will optimise our network by consolidating mainly urban branches in overlapping locations. We anticipate this will lead to a net reduction of about 150 branches. Over 90 per cent of Lloyds and Bank of Scotland customers will continue to have a useable branch within five miles of their home, while the Halifax branch network will be maintained.
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 7.54am GMT
block-time published-time 7.47am GMT
Here are some of the other headlines from the Lloyds announcement this morning, courtesy of Reuters.
Lloyds finance director expects bank to pass PRA stress tests
Lloyds finance director hopeful of paying 2014 dividend
Lloyds anticipates closing fewer branches than competitors
Lloyds says increased PPI provision due to increase in "reactive" complaints
block-time published-time 7.43am GMT
Unite warns on Lloyds job cuts
Here is how the Unite union has reacted to Lloyds job cuts - via the Guardian's City editor.
Unite on Lloyds jobs cuts: "The wallets of top executives at Lloyds should not be getting fat by forcing low paid workers onto the dole"
- Jill Treanor (@jilltreanor) October 28, 2014
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 7.51am GMT
block-time published-time 7.40am GMT
Summary
Good morning, and welcome to our rolling coverage of the world economy, the financial markets, the eurozone and the business world.
Lloyds Bank have announced they are cutting 9,000 jobs - in addition to the 45,000 that have gone since the 2008 bailout and rescue of HBOS.
Bailed out Lloyds Banking Group confirms 9,000 job cuts and 150 branch closures
- Jill Treanor (@jilltreanor) October 28, 2014
The bailed out lender, which is 24%-owned by the taxpayer, also revealed that it was putting aside a further £900m for to compensate customers for misselling PPI insurance policies, bringing the total bill to £11bn.
Here is how Lloyds announced the job losses:
Within the organisation, we will rebalance roles to reflect the evolving nature of the business and ensure we have the people and capabilities required for the transition to a more digitised, IT enabled business. We anticipate a reduction of approximately 9,000 full time roles across the business while building new capability in digital and IT.
Later this morning Lloyds boss António Horta-Osório will explain all, in a presentation to the City that will also set out a new three-year plan for technological change.
The banking industry faces more change in the next 10 years than it has seen in the last 200, according to Lord Blackwell, the chair Lloyds Bank.
From Lloyds statement:
Our plan outlines how we intend to deliver value and high quality experiences for customers alongside superior and sustainable financial performance within a prudent risk and conduct framework. We remain committed to Helping Britain Prosper*, supporting the UK economy and the communities in which we operate.
*Lloyds' capitalisation
We will also be delving into results from BP and BG, as well as looking ahead to the Federal Reserve's monthly meeting starting later today.
All that and more...
block-time updated-timeUpdated at 7.50am GMT
LOAD-DATE: October 28, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
478 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
October 28, 2014 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
Trying to Raise Profile of Climate Change for Washington Voters
BYLINE: By KIRK JOHNSON
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 21
LENGTH: 934 words
SEATTLE -- The effort by a California billionaire named Thomas F. Steyer to bolster global climate change measures in Washington has turned the battle over the State Senate into one of the most expensive legislative elections in state history.
Money has poured into the handful of legislative races that Mr. Steyer's political action committee identified as central to shifting the Senate's leadership from a Republican-led coalition to a Democratic majority that would support the ambitious climate goals set by Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat.
About $4.2 million has been spent so far by independent groups on the 10 most competitive state legislative races, up from $3.2 million for the top 10 in 2012 and $1.8 million in 2010, according to state figures. In terms of spending by outside independent groups, this is almost certainly the most expensive legislative election season in state history, the records show.
The Democrats need a net gain of two seats to achieve a Senate majority, and Mr. Steyer's political action committee, Nextgen Climate Action, has contributed $1.25 million to that goal.
A nearly equal amount has come from Republican and business groups, including $440,000 this month from the Republican State Leadership Committee, a Washington, D.C.-based group that takes donations from companies like Duke Energy, Walmart Stores and General Electric.
Republicans assert that the heightened focus on climate and the environment could benefit them by sending a message to voters that Democrats are overly focused on the planet and not enough on pocketbook issues.
People in both parties say the terrain for discussing environmental goals and climate change in particular has shifted, and in some ways gotten rockier. Addressing the global climate -- unlike, say, local public safety or education -- is profoundly complex with overlapping issues of science and international relations, and few matters that can be addressed with minor tweaks in appropriations or regulations.
''It's an issue that the campaigns probably wouldn't be addressing without for this outside money coming in,'' said Travis N. Ridout, a professor of government and public policy at Washington State University. ''Steyer has sort of forced campaigns to talk about this,'' he added, and not all of them willingly. ''Democrats would prefer not to talk about it, and I suspect Republicans would prefer not to talk about it.''
Governor Inslee, a former congressman and a longtime advocate for strong measures to fight global warming, issued an executive order this year directing the state to work with utilities in reducing the use of electricity produced by coal, and to increase the use of alternative fuels in the state government's fleet of vehicles.
A task force is expected to outline legislative proposals next month, after the election, that could include a carbon tax and other strategies to help energy-intensive industries transition from carbon-based energy.
Democrats control all statewide elected offices in Washington, and hold a majority in the House of Representatives. But they have been in a pique for two years over the Senate, which was nominally in their control after the 2012 election until two Democrats in their 26-to-23 majority joined with the Republicans. The resulting bipartisan majority coalition of self-described fiscal conservatives has blocked many of Mr. Inslee's proposals and worked to rein in expensive state programs.
So even without Mr. Steyer and his money, made through running a hedge fund, 2014 would probably have been something of a grudge match.
With the money, though, climate has been put on the table, if not quite offered as the main course.
''We want to make climate change a local issue,'' said a spokesman for Nextgen Climate, Bobby Whithorne.
The Republican state party chairwoman, Susan Hutchison, said she thought that argument would backfire with voters in a state that already has one of the most environmentally friendly, low-carbon-emission energy profiles in the nation with its reliance on hydropower. Carrying a climate agenda even further, through measures like a carbon tax on gasoline, natural gas and other products, would hurt ordinary Washingtonians, she said.
''With Steyer's very radical environmental agenda, we've got the possibility of gas costing a dollar more per gallon,'' she said. ''It would profoundly hurt our middle-class working families,'' she added. ''It wouldn't hurt the people who live like Tom Steyer.''
Democrats, by contrast, say climate change is having a direct impact on regional industries in ways that concern voters, such as reducing oyster harvests by increasing the acidity of the ocean.
''Climate is affecting our economy and our shellfish industry,'' said Shannon Murphy, the president of Washington Conservation Voters, which received about $750,000 from Nextgen Climate for work in the legislative races. ''We definitely see climate change as a multi-issue concern, and I think voters often see it that way.''
In addition to Washington State, state legislative contests in Oregon, California and Iowa are recipients of Nextgen Climate spending. But the biggest dollar totals are here, said Mr. Whithorne, the spokesman.
Some voter advocates worry that higher spending levels in local legislative elections will turn off voters. At the League of Women Voters of Washington, the group's president, Kim Abel, said she had heard more concerns expressed this year about money and where it is coming from than ever before.
She urged people to vote and not let the money affect them. ''Your vote is the only way you make change,'' she said.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/us/trying-to-raise-profile-of-climate-change-for-washington-voters.html
LOAD-DATE: October 28, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Thomas F. Steyer's political action committee has contributed $1.25 million in Washington State. (PHOTOGRAPH BY ISAAC BREKKEN/GETTY IMAGES)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
479 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
October 28, 2014 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
A Chronicler of Warnings Denied
BYLINE: By CLAUDIA DREIFUS
SECTION: Section D; Column 0; Science Desk; A CONVERSATION WITH; Pg. 6
LENGTH: 1152 words
Naomi Oreskes is a historian of science at Harvard, but she is attracting wide notice these days for a work of science fiction.
''The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View From the Future,'' written with Erik M. Conway, takes the point of view of a historian in 2393 explaining how ''the Great Collapse of 2093'' occurred.
''Without spoiling the story,'' she told me, ''I can tell you that a lot of what happens -- floods, droughts, mass migrations, the end of humanity in Africa and Australia -- is the result of inaction to very clear warnings'' about climate change caused by humans. The 104-page book was listed last week as the No. 1 environmental best-seller on Amazon. Dr. Oreskes, 55, spoke with me for two hours at her home in Concord, Mass., and later again by telephone. Here is an edited and condensed version of the conversations.
Q. YOU ARE A GEOLOGIST AND HISTORIAN BY TRADE. HOW DID CLIMATE CHANGE BECOME THE CENTER OF YOUR RESEARCH?
A. Like many people, I used to think the scientific community was divided about climate change. Then in 2004, as part of a book I was doing on oceanography, I did a search of 1,000 articles published in peer-reviewed scientific literature in the previous 10 years.
I asked how many showed evidence that disagreed with the statement made in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report: ''Most of the observed warming over the past 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.'' I found that none did. Zero.
That was astonishing, because if someone like myself had believed that the science was unsettled, what did the ordinary citizen think? I published my finding in Science. The article was called ''The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.''
It ignited a firestorm. I started getting hate mail. Letters arrived at my university demanding I be fired. At the same time, Al Gore talked about my paper in ''An Inconvenient Truth.'' Suddenly, I was a hero to the left because of Al Gore and a demon to the right because I was now part of the conspiracy to bring down capitalism. I thought I'd entered a parallel universe
WHAT ACTUALLY WAS HAPPENING?
I didn't know it, but when I'd used the word ''consensus,'' I'd hit a land mine. For those who claim that climate change is a myth, the term ''consensus'' will -- boom! -- trigger a backlash. That's because their strategy is based on spreading the idea that the science is still unsettled. Why? Because if you don't know for sure there's a problem, you can't justify doing anything about it.
As an ad from the coal industry had it, ''How much are you willing to pay to solve a problem that may not exist?''
Around the time this was happening, I met the Caltech historian Erik Conway. He'd come across material about the campaign to stop ozone depletion by curbing chlorofluorocarbons use. Erik said one of the people attacking me had done the same to Sherwood Rowland, a co-recipient of the Nobel Prize for his work on ozone depletion.
I did some digging of my own. I learned that my critic was among an informal group of physicists who'd risen to prominence in weapons and rocketry during the Cold War. Though none were climatologists, they became key figures in climate change denial. On the various issues where members of the group had been active -- acid rain, ozone depletion and climate change -- there appeared to be a playbook drawn from the tobacco wars: Insist that the science is unsettled, attack the researchers whose findings they disliked, demand media coverage for a ''balanced'' view.
As a historian, I knew I'd stumbled upon something important. I put my oceanography project aside. ''We've got to write a book about this.'' I told Erik. It took us five years. [Their book is ''Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues From Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.'']
WHAT DID YOU DISCOVER?
That the battle wasn't about science, but economics. From reading their papers, you could see that these physicists were very strong believers in the unfettered free market. They believed that without free markets, you couldn't have democracy.
When we began, we wondered about the common thread linking smoking, acid rain and global warming -- what was it? Well, each was a serious problem that the unregulated free market didn't respond to.
How does the free market prevent acid rain or climate change? It doesn't. How do we know about the potential harm to individuals or the environment? Because of science. And how does one prevent harm? With regulation. To prevent regulation, we've had this campaign of doubt-mongering about science and scientists.
WHAT, IN YOUR OPINION, SHOULD THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY DO?
Erik and I had a hard time ending our book because it's not clear what the remedy is. I don't think the scientist community alone can solve it. In fact, I think the I.P.C.C. should declare victory and close down Working Group I [which assesses the science of climate change]. They've laid down the science. Now it's time to hand this over to our political, economic and social institutions.
Interestingly, the public is ready. Recent polls show that 70 to 80 percent of the American public accept that climate change is real and the majority is willing to spend money to act. So now we're in the larger realm of why American politics have become so dysfunctional.
There are lots of areas where the American people want the government to act, but it doesn't. A few months ago, after Henry Paulson and colleagues issued their ''Risky Business'' report, which showed the economic cost of climate inaction, you had Republicans on the Hill saying that climate change was a hoax. And just a few weeks ago, 400,000 people came to New York to have their voices heard about the need for action on climate change.
WHY IS YOUR NEW BOOK WRITTEN IN THE SCIENCE FICTION GENRE?
Erik is a big science fiction fan. As historians, both of us have spent a lot of time looking back. That made us wonder how a historian of the future might view the decisions being made today.
Writing in this genre gave us the freedom to extrapolate and show what's at stake. Our narrator concludes that in the 21st century, the forces of climate denial prevailed.
DO YOU THINK THAT'S LIKELY?
It depends on what day of the week we're talking about. Five years ago, I thought that most of us would get it. But fossil fuel use is increasing, not decreasing. We should be cutting it down.
Also, I get from the scientific community a feeling that things are going from bad to worse. I hear people in private saying gloomy things they never used to say. You now get the sense that many scientists feel we're approaching a point of no return. It's depressing.
On the slightly more hopeful side, my daughter recently noticed that my TED Talk about climate was getting a lot of attention. ''Mom, my friends are telling me what an inspiration you are,'' she said. That's empowering.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/science/naomi-oreskes-imagines-the-future-history-of-climate-change.html
LOAD-DATE: October 28, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Naomi Oreskes says that those fighting action on climate change are not focusing on science, but on economics. (PHOTOGRAPH BY KAYANA SZYMCZAK FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Interview
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
480 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 27, 2014 Monday 8:45 AM GMT
Can art inspire climate change action? An ice installation aims to do just that;
To coincide with the latest IPCC climate report, 12 blocks of Greenland ice will be left to melt in Copenhagen City Hall Square as a visual representation of climate change
BYLINE: Elke Weber, Irena Bauman, and Olafur Eliasson
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 891 words
This weekend 12 enormous blocks of ice weighing 100 tonnes will be left to melt in Copenhagen's City Hall Square as a striking visual representation of the reality of climate change. The ice, collected from a fjord outside Nuuk, Greenland and displayed in clock formation, is intended to be a physical wake-up call to encourage people to transform climate knowledge into climate action.
Later this month, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will present its Fifth Assessment Report, the most comprehensive assessment of scientific knowledge on climate change since 2007. But it may not lead to action. The information presented by the IPCC is overwhelming and scary and most of it, too complex to be able to translate into effective actions.
The Ice Watch installation is intended to make the climate challenges we are facing tangible. Perception and physical experience are cornerstones of art, and they may also function as tools for creating social change.
The problem is that all too often citizens of the developed world feel disconnected from - or may be fortunate to be unaffected by - the major problems in the world. We do not see ourselves as active agents in the global community. Climate change, poverty, war, disease - these are challenges that compete for our attention. The information age in general, and public awareness campaigns in particular, have succeeded in making most of us know that these challenges must be addressed. But there is a tremendous disconnect between what we know and what we feel, and, consequently, what we do about them.
Being touched by a book, by music, or a work of art gives you a jolt. It shifts you into a new place. This profound experience is not necessarily about getting to know something new. Often when we are touched, we become aware of what is already within us, something we recognise and maybe even identify with, but have not yet verbalised or felt, deep down. This is why looking at a great painting can be liberating and why theatre can connect our heads to our hearts.
When we embody knowledge through experience, we turn it into a force that can guide and shape our actions, in global as well as local contexts. Society and action are not external to art; they are a vital part of it, and there is a long tradition of making thoughts, feelings, and ideas not just perceived and felt, but also relevant in and for societal contexts.
The positive stories of transitioning to a sustainable world are out there and should accompany and temper the doomsday scenarios, because they show the way forward. Certainly, it is important to present the data behind key challenges facing the world today, but action does not necessarily grow from here. Linking knowledge with an embodied sense of who we are and want to be, of responsibility for our children and grandchildren and of commitment to the future, is necessary to mobilise action.
Culture is a strong ally in this endeavour. Where conventional methods of display and communication deployed in, for instance, commercial spaces target people as consumers, cultural spaces invite people inside and hold their attention and presence in a different way. These spaces are bottom up; they tend to create trust and a feeling of empowerment for the individual. Culture helps us, as individuals and groups to experience our interconnectivity, our interdependence, and may move us to do something together, to act with each other, to become conscious, active members of the 'global we'.
By using art, architecture, storytelling, and other cultural activities and by illustrating the correlation between a sustainable lifestyle and a happier and healthier life, we can achieve the shift needed for real climate change action to happen. Therefore, we need to accompany strategy plans, position papers, and limits for CO2 omissions with cultural work.
We call on novelists, playwrights, architects, sculptures, painters, photographers, and other cultural activists to create and make tangible, the option of a sustainable world. We need to understand that life-enhancing measures can be undertaken on behalf of the Earth, its climate, all of us, and our individual and collective future.
It's time to realise that we are not going to solve the climate crisis through our rational mind alone.
Action on climate change requires more than information provided by IPCC reports and other sources. It requires inspiration. We need to be inspired and motivated to change our lifestyles, building codes, travel habits, food choices, energy sources, economic and social indicators, political processes, and much more.
Elke Weber is the Jerome A. Professor of International Business at Columbia University, Usairena Bauman is professor of sustainable urbanism at University of Sheffield, and Ukolafur Eliasson is an artist
Read more stories like this:
Six strategies for creating system change for a sustainable future
Happiness and wellbeing trump material growth
Happiness and wellbeing trump material growth
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: October 27, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
481 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Times Insider)
October 27, 2014 Monday
Steering the Climate Change Coverage
BYLINE: INSIDER STAFF
LENGTH: 765 words
HIGHLIGHT: Adam Bryant recently became editor of The Times’s expanded team covering the environment. We asked him how he is approaching the position.
Few topics fuel as much reader attention as climate change. Adam Bryant recently became editor of The Times'sexpanded team covering the environment. We asked him how he is approaching the position.
Q.
How did this job come about for you?
A.
When I met with Dean Baquet, our executive editor, in August, he said he wanted to beef up The Times's coverage of climate change and the environment, and asked me if I would be interested in overseeing an expanded team of reporters. I had just come off a long project - I was part of the team that worked onthe Innovation Report - and I jumped at the opportunity.
It's a fascinating and important topic, full of nuance and complexity (example here), and I get to work with an amazing group of reporters. It's also a subject that touches on so many different aspects - science, politics, policy, population growth, agriculture, history. The list goes on and on.
Q.
It is a sprawling topic. What is your strategy for covering it?
A.
There's no simple playbook, but here are a few thoughts. Part of The Times's role is to separate the signal from the noise. There are a lot of reports and papers and studies published every day, and Times readers rely on us to choose carefully which ones we're going to cover.
We also want to cover this story on all fronts - including threats, causes and potential solutions. We want to focus on what's happening now (examples hereand here), as well as what may happen in the future (examples here and here). I also want to make sure we give readers guidance about the relative importance and impact of different causes and potential solutions - for example, how do emissions from coal plants compare to tailpipe emissions from cars?
One challenge about the coverage is that many people may have a sense that the story line is somewhat fixed - they believe climate change is a problem, or perhaps they don't. So we'll look for opportunities to connect dots in new ways, or frame stories based on "good dumb questions," as journalists like to call them.
Q.
Is the equivalency issue dead? To what extent should we feel obligated to include the views of climate change skeptics?
A.
Claims that the entire field of climate science is some kind of giant hoax do not hold water, and we have made a conscious decision that we are not going to take that point of view seriously. At the same time, there is a huge amount of legitimate debate and uncertainty within mainstream science. Scientists are pretty open about not being sure how bad things will get, or how quickly. These are the valid scientific issues and uncertainties that we want to cover.
A recent front-page piece by Justin Gillis - Scientists Trace Extreme Heat in Australia to Climate Change - provides a good example of providing informed second opinions on a topic. In his piece, Justin quoted an expert who has often been skeptical of claimed links between weather events and global warming in the past. But in this new study we were reporting on, he said the evidence was strong. That insight is more useful to readers than quoting someone who believes the entire field of study is built on a pillar of sand.
Q.
There's so much bad news and warnings that have been reported in recent years. How do you keep a certain numbness from setting in on the part of readers?
A.
The grim news can be overwhelming - droughts, fires, flooding, deforestation, etc. But there is a lot happening around the world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from human activity. Germany is on track to get close to 30 percent of its energy from renewables this year, for example, as we reported in a recent front-page article. The cost of wind and solar energy is dropping fast around the world.
Q.
You've worked as an editor on the national desk and in features, but you've spent most of your career as a reporter and editor covering business. Do you have a background in science?
A.
I don't have a background in science, though I've always been curious about how our world is changing, the forces at work, how big decisions are made, and the people who make them (in that regard, I'll be continuing with my Corner Office interviews in the Sunday Business section, though I've dropped the Friday installment to concentrate on my new job). I'm going to have a steep learning curve, but many of the reporters on my team have breathtakingly deep knowledge on a range of subjects. My job as editor will be to help choose the topics that are most important, then to make sure the stories are told in a clear, understandable, watertight and compelling way.
LOAD-DATE: October 27, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
482 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
October 25, 2014 Saturday
Late Edition - Final
Pragmatism on Climate Change Trumps Politics at Local Level Across U.S.
BYLINE: By JOHN SCHWARTZ
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 12
LENGTH: 1181 words
MIAMI BEACH -- As she planned her run for the Florida House of Representatives this year, Kristin Jacobs told her team that she wanted her campaign to address the effects of climate change. Her advisers were initially skeptical, noting that voters typically said they cared about the environment, but considered the issue less urgent than the economy and health care.
Ms. Jacobs, a commissioner for Broward County, pressed her case, arguing that few issues were more critical to residents of southeast Florida than street flooding at high tide -- sometimes even on sunny days -- and ocean water seeping into their drinking water. ''It's how you ask the question,'' she said. ''Is clean water important to you?''
Voters have answered yes so far, handing Ms. Jacobs a victory in the Democratic primary in August with more than 76 percent of the vote. Opinion polls suggest she will cruise to victory in November.
The results were ''shocking,'' said Steven J. Vancore, a pollster and political consultant advising Ms. Jacobs.
While politicians are increasingly willing to include environmental messages in their campaigns, many at the national level still steer clear of the politically charged topic of climate change. But in communities across the country where the effects are lapping at the doorsteps of residents, pragmatism often trumps politics, and candidates as well as elected officials across the political spectrum are embracing the issue.
Some local Republican officials in Florida and elsewhere say they can no longer follow the lead of state and national party leaders like Senator Marco Rubio and Gov. Rick Scott, who have publicly questioned whether human activity has had an effect on climate change. (Though both have recently taken a more vague ''I'm not a scientist'' stance.) The Center for American Progress Action Fund, a left-leaning advocacy group in Washington, tracks the statements of American political figures on climate change and reports that more than 58 percent of Republicans in Congress have denied a link between human activity and global warming.
But in the Florida Keys, George Neugent, a Republican county commissioner, said that while people might disagree about what to do about climate change, the effects of flooding and hurricanes were less ambiguous. ''Clearly rising tides are going to affect us,'' he said.
That is leading to discussions about a broad range of possible responses, including elevating roads and switching the Bermuda grass at the local golf course to paspalum, which tolerates salty water.
''I have to be very careful when I say some things, especially to the skeptics,'' Mr. Neugent said, adding that he avoided arguments about the science of climate change. ''It's not worth the effort or the time to prove what clearly is a factual situation. We're living with it.''
James Brainard, the Republican mayor of Carmel, Ind., has sought to be active on climate change issues. The city has reduced its energy use with fuel-efficient city cars and small trucks, LED lighting and so-called green buildings. It also pipes the methane gas from the treatment of wastewater into boilers that help produce so-called biosolids that can be used as fertilizer.
''I don't think we want to be the party that believes in dirty air and dirty water,'' Mr. Brainard said, noting that the Environmental Protection Agency was founded under President Richard M. Nixon, a Republican. Despite the broad agreement among scientists on climate change, he added, ''the problem in D.C. is that a lot of people are making a lot of money keeping people mad at each other.''
Bob Inglis, a former Republican congressman from South Carolina who is working to get members of his party to accept climate change and identify solutions, said his argument was not a hard sell for local officials ''who are in the business of fixing things, not just talking about them.'' His hope, he added, is that the viewpoint ''eventually percolates up to the people making grand pronouncements.''
Across the United States, a growing number of state and local governments are pulling together plans to deal with the effects of climate change, as a new tracking tool from the Georgetown Climate Center at Georgetown University Law Center shows.
The Obama administration, hoping to build on momentum at the local level, has created a task force of state and local officials who are active on the issues. Ms. Jacobs and Mr. Brainard are members. The group is preparing a report for the federal government this fall, with hundreds of recommendations for local action and a national role.
Commissioner Paula Brooks of Franklin County, Ohio, which includes Columbus, the state capital, said there had been a 37 percent increase in flooding in the area since 1958, as heavy rains have overwhelmed aging drainage systems.
The runoff from such rains has carried fertilizer into Lake Erie, contributing to an algae crisis that forced Toledo, Ohio, to ban the use of tap water for several days in August.
''I really see this as a very bipartisan issue that people are interested in talking about,'' said Ms. Brooks, a Democrat who also serves on Mr. Obama's climate task force. ''These weather impacts are coming home to roost.''
Patsy Parker, the mayor of Perdido Beach, Ala., said ruinous flooding in April washed away roads and left a gully 12 feet deep. As much as 30 inches of rain fell. That the town is by the Gulf of Mexico makes it especially vulnerable to hurricanes.
Ms. Parker is also a member of the president's climate change task force, but she said that being on the panel had not bolstered her popularity in the predominantly Republican region of southern Alabama.
She claims no party affiliation, and says that she does not talk about climate change with her constituents, nor about whether the weather crises might get worse. Discussing climate change in a community like hers, she said, just stirs people up.
''I leave that conversation up to the experts,'' she added, ''the scientists who have much more knowledge and training than I do.''
Ms. Parker does welcome interest in protecting Perdido Beach from the ravages of severe weather. ''Even if it gets no worse, it's bad enough that we need to do what we can,'' she said.
But climate change has drawn significant interest in South Florida. This month, more than 600 people attended the Southeast Florida Climate Leadership Summit in Miami Beach, where Ms. Jacobs of Broward County and other officials from the region described their work on more than 100 environmental initiatives. The projects are intended to make that part of the state more resilient and energy efficient, and to protect groundwater from creeping salinization.
John P. Holdren, Mr. Obama's science adviser, and Mike Boots, who leads the Council on Environmental Quality at the White House, attended the event in a show of support.
''You simply don't have time to endure the incredibly frustrating political debate that is consuming a lot of the oxygen in the city where we work,'' Mr. Boots, referring to Washington, told the attendees in Miami Beach. ''You're acting.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/science/pragmatism-on-climate-change-trumps-politics-at-local-level-across-us.html
LOAD-DATE: October 25, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: George Neugent, above, and Kristin Jacobs, left, are county commissioners in Florida who have seen the impact of climate change at home. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY KRISTEN LIVENGOOD FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES
JOE RAEDLE/GETTY IMAGES) (A14)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
483 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
October 25, 2014 Saturday
Late Edition - Final
E.U. Greenhouse Gas Deal Falls Short of Expectations
BYLINE: By JAMES KANTER
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 11
LENGTH: 1119 words
BRUSSELS -- The deal reached early Friday by the European Union to cap its greenhouse gas emissions was meant to increase pressure on the rest of the world to achieve a landmark accord on climate protection next year, the bloc's leaders said.
The approval of a target to slash emissions by 2030 by at least 40 percent, compared with 1990 levels, makes the European Union the first major global emitter to put its position on the table ahead of an important United Nations climate meeting in Paris at the end of 2015.
That target will send ''a strong signal to other big economies and all other countries,'' said Connie Hedegaard, the European Union commissioner for climate action. ''We have done our homework; now we urge you to follow Europe's example,'' she said.
But environmentalists said the agreement, approved at a summit meeting here after late-night marathon negotiations, amounted to a weak compromise reflecting the complexity of managing a bloc of 28 member nations with widely varying energy systems. Elements of the deal were watered down to account for countries like Poland that rely on carbon-heavy coal, and for countries like Britain that were unwilling to accept binding targets on such other measures as the percentage of energy that comes from renewable sources and energy efficiency.
''The E.U. deal was probably the best compromise that progressive countries could hope for, given concerns of various nations about coal-burning and competitiveness,'' said Richard Black, the director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, a nonprofit organization in Britain. ''However, it is also a compromise with the climate system and with the needs of future generations.''
The European Union had come to the 2030 target after determining that it was the only way the union could keep its 2009 pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 95 percent of 1990 levels by midcentury.
Mr. Black said even so, he doubted that the new target would ''allow the E.U. to meet its long-term target of virtually eliminating carbon emissions.''
The deal also included a clause -- demanded by nations like Hungary that are concerned about their global competitiveness -- to reconsider the carbon reduction target if an ambitious international treaty is not reached next year.
But Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and François Hollande, the French president, both suggested that the target would not be adjusted downward no matter the outcome of the United Nations talks next year.
The United Nations has been pressing for a climate deal that will require significant action by major economies like the United States and the European Union, as well as China, India and Brazil.
The global effort poses significant problems for President Obama: While he has pushed for domestic carbon pollution cuts and for a global climate deal, there is almost no chance that the current Senate will vote to ratify a climate change treaty, and there may be even less chance after the midterm elections, should Republicans gain the Senate majority. Instead, Mr. Obama's climate change negotiators are working with their international counterparts to forge a hybrid deal blending a mix of binding and nonbinding provisions -- what the negotiators are calling ''politically binding.''
The major polluting nations will most likely set their targets in the first half of next year. It remains unclear what they will look like.
But even as the European Union has tried to pave the way by setting its climate targets early, experts said they may not be as ambitious as they first appear.
The deal requires a 40 percent cut in emissions from levels in 1990, a period when carbon pollution from European coal plants was at high levels. In the United States, President Obama is pushing policies to cut carbon pollution by 17 percent from levels in 2005, a year in which carbon pollution was much lower, according to Robert N. Stavins of the Harvard Project on Climate Agreements. The European Union deal could still top that, but probably by only a few percentage points using the 2005 benchmark.
''It puts them once again in first place if there is a race to be out first -- but the race between first and second place might be quite small, depending on baseline years,'' said Robert Stavins, director of Harvard University's environmental economics program.
Curbing emissions that contribute to a changing climate has long been a popular cause in Europe. Policy makers here frequently highlight how their industries and citizens emit lower levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide than those of the United States and other industrialized countries.
But recently there has been less enthusiasm among Europeans for a green agenda. The reasons include the stagnant economy that has depressed manufacturing, jobs and wages, and an unwillingness to adopt new regulations that could worsen Europe's declining international competitiveness.
There have also been reductions in funding for green projects, and concerns about nuclear energy as an alternative since the disaster at Fukushima, Japan.
In addition, there has been diminished interest in identifying renewable alternatives, given the advent of technologies to extract cheap shale gas despite its uncertain prospects in Europe.
European leaders have also been a bit more reluctant to take steps against climate change since a climate conference in Copenhagen ended in failure five years ago.
The talks were ''not easy, not at all,'' said Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council, the body that represents European Union leaders.
The result was an overall package that was significantly weaker than what countries like Germany and Sweden had been seeking.
A target of generating at least 27 percent of its energy from renewable sources will be binding at the European Union level, but not at the national level. That raised questions among climate experts about how the target would be enforced.
A separate target for improving energy efficiency by at least 27 percent was ''indicative'' only, meaning it would not be binding even at the bloc level. The target also was lower than the 30 percent proposed by the European Commission.
But the outcome suited David Cameron, the British prime minister, who had been concerned that binding targets on renewable sources and energy efficiency would give ammunition to his political opponents who contend that he has surrendered too much sovereignty to Brussels. Climate goals could now be accomplished at ''the least cost to our industries, at the least cost to our consumers, and the least cost to families up and down Britain who don't want to pay any more on their energy bill than they otherwise should have to,'' Mr. Cameron said.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/world/eu-greenhouse-gas-deal-falls-short-of-expectations.html
LOAD-DATE: October 25, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: European Union leaders and family members in Brussels on Thursday. Their accord aimed to set the stage for talks next year. (PHOTOGRAPH BY GEERT VANDEN WIJNGAERT/ASSOCIATED PRESS)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
484 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 24, 2014 Friday 2:51 PM GMT
Europe and the 'why me?' approach to decarbonisation;
A slowdown in the EU's pace of climate action may inspire unintended reciprocal measures in the runup to the 2015 global climate summit in Paris
BYLINE: Arthur Neslen
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 825 words
In the economically flush days of 2007 as states prepared poker stances for an anticipated Kyoto II deal in Copenhagen, the EU's climate and energy targets for 2020 were seen as a 'me first!' moment.
Six years later, the bloc's sequel is already being denounced by the clean energy industry and environmentalists as a 'why me?' package that barely rises above the EU's own 'business as usual' forecasts, and comes with caveats that could render it toothless.
The 20-20-20 benchmarks for 2020 - of 20% CO2 cuts, renewable energy share and efficiency gains - had appeared to offer global leadership. Reciprocal pledges were expected to allow a dynamic new US president to galvanise a coherent response to climate change.
The 40-27-27 goals for 2030 slow the EU's pace of change and extend to renewable energy the one clear failure of the 2008 package - a 'non-binding' energy efficiency goal that the bloc looks set to miss. The one binding emissions cut in the package is a formula that negotiators hope to apply at the Paris climate summit in 2015, now talked of as a last chance to save the whole business of international climate talks under the auspices of the UN.
But some negotiators from the Least Developed Countries (LDC) group are privately despairing of the package, viewing it as a shift away from the EU's ultimate commitment of an 80-95% cut in emissions by 2050. According to scientific projections, this is Europe's minimum contribution to preventing catastrophic global warming.
"This pledge is 10 years later than needed and does not meet our expectations of leadership nor what is required by the science to stay below a 2C increase," said Dr Gary Theseira, of the Environmental Management and Climate Change Division of Malaysia's climate ministry.
"It seems that the EU is not even aiming for a two degrees target anymore and that is incomprehensible for us in terms of the impacts it will have," one LDC negotiator said, off the record.
Without explicit, binding pledges on energy efficiency and renewable energy, the EU's end goals can seem wan and abstract abroad. The emissions trading system is now the bloc's most meaningful market driver, but it would need to rise - perhaps by a factor of 10 - to spur significant fuel-switching. Senior commission sources freely admit that there is a political limit on how high the carbon price may go.
A surplus of 2.6bn allowances on the world's carbon market will anyway whittle away the EU's actual emissions cut from its headline figure to as little as 31%, according to NGOs like Carbon Market Watch. But even this may not be fully implemented if a clause in the 2030 package is activated, as environmentalists fear.
The first bullet point in the 2030 package document says that "the European Council calls on all countries to come forward with ambitious targets and policies well in advance of the Conference of Parties (COP21) in Paris. It will revert to this issue after the Paris conference. The European Council will keep all the elements of the framework under review."
At a press conference last night, the European Council president Herman Van Rompuy insisted that this did not imply a watering down of EU commitments. "You can be sure that what was decided now will be maintained and will not go below what was agreed," he said. But scepticism is rife.
Industry groups in Brussels have invested heavily in promoting the argument that Europe has a population more than twice the size of the US, but represents only 11% of the world's emissions. It cannot save the planet on its own, and its industries could be driven out of business if they try to do so - by cheaper and dirtier competitors. Action should thus be postponed until everyone moves at a similar pace. The EU's relative deceleration accommodates this argument.
One practical problem with this is that decarbonisation requires an enormous impetus to restructure homes, travel, agriculture, jobs and ways of life, which becomes cheaper as the energy chain is transformed. Postponing action makes it more jolting and expensive - as new fossil fuel plants are built and locked into future energy supplies.
The EU's 40% target has already been dismissed as "too little, too late" to meet the 2C target by the vice-chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Prof Jim Skea, who says that it will involve a superhuman effort between 2030-2050 that defies models of cost-effective decarbonisation.
But another problem is that emerging economies such as China - now the world's biggest CO2 emitter - are unlikely to make these kinds of efforts in the absence of proof that nations more responsible for historic emissions, are doing their fair share - and helping to create an economic opportunity for others as they go.
The sad logic of the package agreed in Brussels on Thursday night is that Europe may not be the only COP party today looking at the short-term costs of decarbonisation and asking 'why me?'.
LOAD-DATE: October 24, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
485 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 24, 2014 Friday 8:17 AM GMT
EU leaders agree to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030;
Climate commissioner hails 'strong signal' ahead of global Paris summit but key aspects of deal left vague or voluntary
BYLINE: Arthur Neslen in Brussels
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 799 words
European leaders have struck a broad climate change pact obliging the EU as a whole to cut greenhouse gases by at least 40% by 2030.
But key aspects of the deal that will form a bargaining position for global climate talks in Paris next year were left vague or voluntary, raising questions as to how the aims would be realised.
As well as the greenhouse gas, two 27% targets were agreed - for renewable energy market share and increase in energy efficiency improvement. The former would be binding only on the EU as a whole. The latter would be optional, although it could be raised to 30% by a review in 2020.
"It was not easy, not at all, but we managed to reach a fair decision that sets the EU on an ambitious but cost-effective climate path," Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council told a press conference in Brussels.
"This package is very good news for our fight against climate change," the European Commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso, added. "No player in the world is as ambitious as the EU."
With an eye on the haggling expected ahead of a global climate summit in Paris next year, the EU's climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, said the agreement was an important step for the whole world. She said: "We have sent a strong signal to other big economies and all other countries: we have done our homework, now we urge you to follow Europe's example."
But a clause was inserted into the text that could trigger a review of the EU's new targets if other countries do not come forward with comparable commitments in Paris.
The Brussels summit was dominated by arguments over energy savings and climate policy, with countries from Poland to Portugal pleading special circumstances and threatening to veto any breakthrough unless their demands were met.
David Cameron was keen to minimise any perceived loss of UK sovereignty over energy policy, for fear of further exposure to attacks from the Eurosceptic wing of his Conservative party and Ukip. The prime minister won a battle to keep policies aimed at boosting renewables and saving electricity voluntary for member states.
"It's important that you've got flexibility over your energy mix," said a Downing Street spokeswoman. Cameron had hoped to cut the energy efficiency figure to 25%, but was prepared to accept 27% as long as it was not binding on Britain.
Portugal attained a non-binding objective that 15% of the bloc's energy be transportable via cross-border connections by 2030, with an invitation to the European Commission to make concrete proposals for project financing from the EU budget.
Danish concerns were addressed with the introduction of a "cap and trade approach" to sectors previously considered outside the bloc's carbon market such as agriculture, buildings and transport - which alone represents 31% of the bloc's emissions.
Poland, heavily dependent on coal-fired energy production, threatened to block the deal unless the costs to its economy and industry were discounted by (EURO)15bn-(EURO)20bn (£12bn-£16bn) between 2020 and 2030, under a complicated system of concessions from the EU's carbon trading system.
Concessions granted to Poland will allow it to continue reaping hundreds of millions of euros in free allowances to modernise coal-fired power plants. Of eight EU nations eligible for the free allocations, Poland claimed 60% of the total up until 2019.
A poll by TNS and YouGov for the online activist group Avaaz late last week found that 56% of Poles thought that EU financial support for energy should back clean energy rather than fossil fuels.
"It's scandalous," said Julia Michalak, a spokeswoman for Climate Action Network Europe. "A continuation of free emission permits for Poland's coal-reliant energy system would be a grave mistake. Leaders who came to Brussels to agree new historic climate goals, are actually discussing whether to hand out money to Europe's dirtiest power plants."
Intense bilateral discussions between Cameron, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and other EU leaders over the last week tried to find ways of placating the Poles, who kept open their option of vetoing the summit outcome until the end.
The anticipated 40% greenhouse gas cut by 2030 would be measured against benchmark 1990 levels. That figure is to be binding on the EU and the minimum level achieved, with Germany and Britain happy to agree a higher figure.
Tony Robson, the CEO of Knauf Insulation - a leading insulation firm that had threatened to divest from Europe unless firm energy saving targets were announced - said that the 27% figure for energy efficiency improvement was "no better than business as usual" in an open letter to EU leaders.
A 27% target "sends a strong signal to the energy efficiency industry to 'leave Europe and make your investments elsewhere'", he wrote.
LOAD-DATE: October 24, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
486 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 24, 2014 Friday 7:10 AM GMT
Coalition urged to raise its commitment for greenhouse gas cuts;
Greens and Labor push for bigger cuts after EU leaders committed to 40% by 2030.
BYLINE: Oliver Milman
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 546 words
The Australian government has been urged to scale up its ambitions for greenhouse gas cuts after European Union leaders struck a deal to reduce emissions by at least 40% by 2030.
Talks in Brussels overnight culminated in one of the first major commitments to post-2020 emissions cuts before a crunch United Nations gathering in Paris next year. The Paris talks are expected to involve nations thrashing out long-term emissions goals.
Australia has a target of a 5% cut in emissions by 2020, based on 2000 levels. The foreign affairs minister, Julie Bishop, told a recent UN summit in New York that Australia's goal was ambitious but the independent Climate Change Authority has labelled it inadequate, calling for a reduction of at least 15%.
The new EU target, measured against 1990 levels, came with two additional 27% targets - for renewable energy market share and increase in energy efficiency improvement by 2030.
Australia's renewable energy target mandates that 41,000 gigawatt hours of the country's energy must come from renewable sources by 2020. The Coalition is seeking to cut this to a "real" 20% of overall energy use, a position opposed by Labor and the Greens.
Asked about the EU deal, a spokesman for Greg Hunt, the environment minister, told Guardian Australia: "We welcome all progress on reducing emissions around the world. The problem with Labor's carbon tax is that Australia's emissions were going up not down by 2020.
"We will meet our targets for 2020 and we've always said that we will consider progress beyond that in the lead-up to Paris."
The Greens said Australia's current emissions target is "disastrously inadequate" and that the Coalition needed to show ambition for deeper cuts.
"Europe has committed to post-2020 cuts of 40%, while in Australia we're struggling to reach five," said Christine Milne, the Greens leader. "Tony Abbott is tearing up every piece of clean energy policy he can.
"The Abbott government needs to end its protection racket for the dirty fossil fuel industry and realise we are in the midst of a global energy revolution."
Erwin Jackson, deputy chief executive of the Climate Institute, said the EU deal was a "stark contrast" to Australia's efforts.
"The EU's announcement yet again underscores how much the rest of the world, and our major trading partners like the EU, China and the US, are leaping ahead of Australia, while we are going backwards," he said.
"It is critical that our renewable energy target contributes to long-term decarbonisation of the energy sector as a key objective, rather than basing the target around short-term industry interests.
"Australia's power sector needs to continue decarbonising over this and coming decades. This requires a return to bipartisan support for a robust and growing RET, complemented by a measure - regulatory or otherwise - to close down ageing, inefficient coal stations."
A spokeswoman for Mark Butler, Labor's environment spokesman, said: "This is further evidence the world is going ahead in leaps and bounds while Australia is in reverse gear.
"Tony Abbott repeatedly said he'll wait for the world to act before he does. Well, the world has been taking meaningful action like this for many months and still Tony Abbott is still refusing to do anything about climate change."
LOAD-DATE: October 24, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
487 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 24, 2014 Friday 2:29 AM GMT
EU leaders agree to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030;
Climate commissioner hails 'strong signal' ahead of global Paris summit but key aspects of deal left vague or voluntary
BYLINE: Arthur Neslen in Brussels
SECTION: WORLD NEWS
LENGTH: 799 words
European leaders have struck a broad climate change pact obliging the EU as a whole to cut greenhouse gases by at least 40% by 2030.
But key aspects of the deal that will form a bargaining position for global climate talks in Paris next year were left vague or voluntary, raising questions as to how the aims would be realised.
As well as the greenhouse gas, two 27% targets were agreed - for renewable energy market share and increase in energy efficiency improvement. The former would be binding only on the EU as a whole. The latter would be optional, although it could be raised to 30% by a review in 2020.
"It was not easy, not at all, but we managed to reach a fair decision that sets the EU on an ambitious but cost-effective climate path," Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council told a press conference in Brussels.
"This package is very good news for our fight against climate change," the European Commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso, added. "No player in the world is as ambitious as the EU."
With an eye on the haggling expected ahead of a global climate summit in Paris next year, the EU's climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, said the agreement was an important step for the whole world. She said: "We have sent a strong signal to other big economies and all other countries: we have done our homework, now we urge you to follow Europe's example."
But a clause was inserted into the text that could trigger a review of the EU's new targets if other countries do not come forward with comparable commitments in Paris.
The Brussels summit was dominated by arguments over energy savings and climate policy, with countries from Poland to Portugal pleading special circumstances and threatening to veto any breakthrough unless their demands were met.
David Cameron was keen to minimise any perceived loss of UK sovereignty over energy policy, for fear of further exposure to attacks from the Eurosceptic wing of his Conservative party and Ukip. The prime minister won a battle to keep policies aimed at boosting renewables and saving electricity voluntary for member states.
"It's important that you've got flexibility over your energy mix," said a Downing Street spokeswoman. Cameron had hoped to cut the energy efficiency figure to 25%, but was prepared to accept 27% as long as it was not binding on Britain.
Portugal attained a non-binding objective that 15% of the bloc's energy be transportable via cross-border connections by 2030, with an invitation to the European Commission to make concrete proposals for project financing from the EU budget.
Danish concerns were addressed with the introduction of a "cap and trade approach" to sectors previously considered outside the bloc's carbon market such as agriculture, buildings and transport - which alone represents 31% of the bloc's emissions.
Poland, heavily dependent on coal-fired energy production, threatened to block the deal unless the costs to its economy and industry were discounted by (EURO)15bn-(EURO)20bn (£12bn-£16bn) between 2020 and 2030, under a complicated system of concessions from the EU's carbon trading system.
Concessions granted to Poland will allow it to continue reaping hundreds of millions of euros in free allowances to modernise coal-fired power plants. Of eight EU nations eligible for the free allocations, Poland claimed 60% of the total up until 2019.
A poll by TNS and YouGov for the online activist group Avaaz late last week found that 56% of Poles thought that EU financial support for energy should back clean energy rather than fossil fuels.
"It's scandalous," said Julia Michalak, a spokeswoman for Climate Action Network Europe. "A continuation of free emission permits for Poland's coal-reliant energy system would be a grave mistake. Leaders who came to Brussels to agree new historic climate goals, are actually discussing whether to hand out money to Europe's dirtiest power plants."
Intense bilateral discussions between Cameron, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and other EU leaders over the last week tried to find ways of placating the Poles, who kept open their option of vetoing the summit outcome until the end.
The anticipated 40% greenhouse gas cut by 2030 would be measured against benchmark 1990 levels. That figure is to be binding on the EU and the minimum level achieved, with Germany and Britain happy to agree a higher figure.
Tony Robson, the CEO of Knauf Insulation - a leading insulation firm that had threatened to divest from Europe unless firm energy saving targets were announced - said that the 27% figure for energy efficiency improvement was "no better than business as usual" in an open letter to EU leaders.
A 27% target "sends a strong signal to the energy efficiency industry to 'leave Europe and make your investments elsewhere'", he wrote.
LOAD-DATE: October 24, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
488 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
October 24, 2014 Friday
Late Edition - Final
Rick S. Piltz, Firebrand on Climate, Dies at 71
BYLINE: By DOUGLAS MARTIN
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Obituary; Pg. 25
LENGTH: 1001 words
Rick S. Piltz, a climate policy analyst who resigned from the administration of George W. Bush in 2005, accusing it of distorting scientific findings for political reasons and then releasing internal White House documents to support his contention, died on Saturday in Washington. He was 71.
The cause was metastasized liver cancer, his wife, Karen Metchis, said. When he resigned, Mr. Piltz was a senior associate in a White House group that coordinated climate research among a dozen agencies. He quit, he told PBS in 2006, because he thought he could no longer be ''complicit'' in what he viewed as ''a conspiracy of silence.'' He said his bosses had watered down language in scientific reports to play down warnings of global warming.
The essential issue in the climate change debate is whether human activities -- particularly emissions of so-called greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels -- will raise temperatures over the next century. Many in the Bush administration questioned whether existing scientific evidence justified spending billions of dollars to cut emissions.
Proponents of curbing global warming say there is already a scientific consensus that the problem is real and accelerating. In June 2005, Mr. Piltz sent The New York Times a fat FedEx package of documents that had been edited by Philip A. Cooney, a lawyer who was chief of staff of the Council on Environmental Quality, the White House office that oversees federal environmental initiatives. Some of the dozens of editing changes in the documents were as subtle as the insertion of the phrase ''significant and fundamental'' before the word ''uncertainties.''
In an October 2002 draft report of a summary of government climate research, titled ''Our Changing Planet,'' Mr. Cooney amplified the sense of uncertainty by adding the word ''extremely'' to this sentence: ''The attribution of the cause of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult.''
Mr. Cooney crossed out a paragraph describing to what extent mountain glaciers and snowpack were projected to shrink. His note in the margins said the report was ''straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings.''
The week that he sent the documents to The Times, Mr. Piltz, in a scathing memo circulated among government climate-change experts, declared, ''Politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program.''
Before coming to the environmental council, Mr. Cooney had been a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's main trade organization, which opposes taking what it considers precipitous action on global warming. Mr. Cooney was ''climate team leader.'' Less than a week after the Times article, he resigned to take a job in public affairs with Exxon Mobil in Dallas.
White House press officers voiced full support for Mr. Cooney but declined to make him available for comment.
In testimony to a House committee in 2007, Mr. Cooney, a bearish, softly spoken man, said he had been trying to ''advance the administration's stated goals and policies'' in making the edits, which he said were approved by James R. Mahoney, director of the Climate Change Science Program, for which Mr. Piltz worked. He said that Mr. Piltz had not complained to him personally before going public.
Writing in National Review in 2007, Mario Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a research organization that is skeptical of global warming, pointed out that Mr. Piltz, like Mr. Cooney, was not a scientist. Mr. Lewis argued that Mr. Cooney ''did not alter a single data point or bottom-line scientific finding or conclusion,'' making only slight changes in inflection. He suggested that Mr. Piltz seemed most disappointed that the Bush administration had disregarded a sweeping Clinton administration assessment of global warming on which Mr. Piltz had worked.
After resigning, Mr. Piltz spent the next nine months without income or benefits. He cashed in his retirement money and took out a loan on his home to start an advocacy group called Climate Science Watch. He blogged, did many interviews with the news media and testified before Congress several times.
In 2006, two liberal groups, the Fertel Foundation and the Nation Institute, which is affiliated with The Nation magazine, awarded Mr. Piltz their Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling. ''Piltz was the first insider to expose how politics worked to undermine the integrity of the federal science program,'' the citation said.
Frederick Steven Piltz was born on July 29, 1943, in Detroit, and earned bachelor's and master's degrees in political science from the University of Michigan. He then moved to Austin, where he taught at the University of Texas, worked as a legislative researcher and joined the state department of agriculture when Jim Hightower, a liberal activist, was commissioner.
In Washington, Mr. Piltz worked for the Center for Clean Air Policy, a think tank; Renew America, an environmental organization; and the House Science Committee under the chairmanship of George Brown Jr., Democrat of California.
When the Republicans took over the House in 1994, Mr. Piltz moved to the Global Change Research Program in the Clinton administration. Its name was changed to the Climate Change Science Program in the Bush administration. Under President Obama, it went back to the original name.
Mr. Piltz lived in Bethesda, Md. Ms. Metchis, his wife, said he died at a hospice in Washington.
In addition to his wife, his survivors include a daughter, Shayne Piltz. A brother, James, died in 1975. A previous marriage, to Charlotte Crafton, ended in divorce.
Mr. Piltz's allies say he coined the term ''climate denier'' to describe those who disparage evidence of planetary warming. Whether he did or not, there is little doubt that in his testimony, blogs and interviews, he helped popularize it.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/us/politics/rick-s-piltz-firebrand-on-climate-dies-at-71-.html
LOAD-DATE: October 24, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Rick S. Piltz in March 2013. (PHOTOGRAPH BY ALEX J. BERLINER/ABIMAGES, VIA A.P.)
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Obituary (Obit); Biography
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
489 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Dot Earth)
October 24, 2014 Friday
Another Round on Energy Rebound
BYLINE: ANDREW C. REVKIN
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 2171 words
HIGHLIGHT: Two analysts of energy trends expand on their view that efficiency’s climate and energy benefits have been overstated.
Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute sent the following response to the critiques I ran of their recent Op-Ed article on the tendency for energy-efficiency improvements to be eroded by "rebound." Further discussion can play out in the comments below this post:
Why Rebound Matters
By Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger
In response to our New York Times Op-Ed about the limits of energy efficiency and the furious reaction to it from some quarters, Andy Revkin asks whether we can find room for agreement on the rebound effect.
To some degree we already have.
Just over three years ago, when Breakthrough Institute published an extensive review of the economic literature on rebound effects, there was little discussion about how serious rebound effects are, or what the implication might be for climate and energy policy. The conventional wisdom at the time, as Andy can attest, having been party to some of the private exchanges among efficiency experts and advocates, was that rebound effects were so small as to be inconsequential.
While some in energy policy circles still cling to this view, today there is broad recognition that rebound effects are likely substantially greater than has previously been acknowledged. This consensus extends from large academic reviews of the literature such as Steve Sorrell's groundbreaking 2007 review for the UK government to more recent reviews conducted by the European Commission, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the International Energy Agency (IEA). All cite studies finding rebounds in various contexts approaching and in some cases exceeding 50%. This stands in contrast, for instance, with the IEA's estimate from as recently as 2012, which, despite recognizing the existence of rebound, estimated rebound effects globally at a rather precise 9%.
Even Azevedo and her colleagues, who offer a series of criticisms of our argument [link], acknowledge the likelihood of significant rebounds. So it would appear that we can all agree that estimations of the energy savings from energy efficient technologies based upon engineering-level estimates likely overstate significantly the energy savings that will actually be realized. This recognition constitutes progress, given that most climate mitigation scenarios still fail to account for significant levels of - or in many cases, any - rebound.
One precondition for finding agreement, however, is accurate representation of the positions taken by those with whom you are trying to find agreement. Over the last two weeks, a number of commentators and efficiency advocates have taken issue with positions we have never taken. Azevedo and her colleagues, for instance, altered a quote from our Op-Ed to suggest that we had argued that energy efficiency measures would universally and in the aggregate result in higher global energy demand. We have not made this claim.
What we wrote was this:
"Recent estimates and case studies have suggested that in many energy-intensive sectors of developing economies , energy-saving technologies may backfire, meaning that increased energy consumption associated with lower energy costs because of higher efficiency may in fact result in higher energy consumption than there would have been without those technologies." Azevedo et al. inexplicably removed the italicized part of the sentence in order to characterize our claim as more sweeping than it was, and contrast it to what is cited by IPCC and IEA.
We do agree with Azevedo and co. that there are lots of uncertainties with regard to the magnitude of rebound effects associated with energy efficiency improvements. The difficulties in establishing baselines against which rebound should be judged, establishing causation, distinguishing between rebound effects and income effects, and the broader impacts of income growth are all well established. These problems, as Steve Sorrell notes in his post, "are hardly unique to rebound effects - a host of other physical and economic phenomena present equally difficult challenges."
In service of exploring where there may be other areas of agreement, we will offer some further thoughts on these questions.
The first regards baselines. To estimate rebound, one first must establish a baseline estimate of energy consumption against which it will be measured. Perhaps, as Azevedo and co. suggest, the planet, when viewed from space, might instead be illuminated with candlelight had incandescent light bulbs not come along. If that is your view, then first incandescent light bulbs and then LEDs have resulted in enormous energy savings. Or, to take another example, if you think that without the development of LCD screens, we would all have 50-inch cathode ray television sets on our walls and cathode ray iPhones in our pockets, then the development of vastly more efficient LCD technology has also been a huge energy saver.
But the reality is that the energy efficiency of new technologies is frequently inseparable from other performance characteristics that result in us using those technologies in different ways for different purposes. This speaks to the question of causation. Did the development of the LCD screen cause us to invent the iPhone? Of course not, it was one of a series of enabling technologies that made smartphones possible. But how one answers that question is actually irrelevant to the question of estimating the likely energy savings associated with efficient technologies. Whether or not LCD's caused smartphone use, smartphone use erodes the energy savings that an engineering estimate of the energy savings associated with replacing 19" cathode ray televisions with LCD's in, say, the year 2000 would have arrived at.
Wealth effects are another issue that confound efforts to accurately estimate rebound. Did we all buy enormous flat screen televisions because we got richer, because efficiency made them cheaper to operate or because the cost per inch of owning and operating pixels came down dramatically due to LCD's? Again, how much we attribute to the fact that we are richer and how much to the fact that a new technology changed both the efficiency of television screens and their performance characteristics doesn't matter. Even were we far richer than we are today, it is hardly any more likely that we would all have 50" cathode tubes in our homes than that the planet viewed from outer space would be awash in candlelight.
Or consider automobiles. Over the last several decades, cars have become much more efficient. But 75% of the technical efficiency gains achieved in US automobiles went to produce more power, not save fuel. Was that because we got richer, because gas prices were low, or because the real cost of powering a ton of steel at 60 miles an hour dropped due to higher engine efficiency? For the purposes of estimating the energy savings it doesn't matter. Whatever the respective contributions of these factors, 75% of the technical efficiency gains were not taken as energy savings.
The question of wealth effects is most important when it comes to the developing world. People in the developing world are becoming more affluent. As they do, they are consuming more energy. But which is the chicken and which is the egg? Do people consume more energy because they get richer or do they get richer because they consume more energy? In practice, these mechanisms are interdependent, with changes in technology and wealth reinforcing each other within positive feedback loops.
Teasing these factors apart has confounded the economics profession for several generations but there is broad agreement that most long-term economic growth is a product of multifactor productivity growth. And there is growing recognition that energy productivity growth is a key driver of multifactor productivity growth.
Some economists go even further. Using a different production function and measure of energy productivity than standard neo-classical growth theory, for instance, the heterodox economist Robert Ayres has estimated that energy productivity growth has been the primary driver of economic growth in several OECD economies during the 20th century.
In any event, the relationship between energy productivity and economic growth remains a subject of significant dispute within the economics profession and well beyond. But one thing we do know is that energy consumption in the developing world will grow significantly over the next century. And what the last three hundreds years of rising energy demand and declining energy intensity suggests is that so long as energy demand is far from saturated, energy efficient technologies are likely to contribute to rising energy demand.
Indeed, energy demand growth and high levels of unsaturated demand in the developing world basically describe the same phenomena. Growth in demand for energy will overwhelmingly come from the developing world for most of this century for the rather obvious reason that energy demand among most of the world's population is far from saturated. Indeed more than 1.3 billion of them are so far from saturation that they have no access to modern energy sources at all.
In this sense, rebound and backfire represent not two distinct concepts but two distinct contexts. While the terms can be distinguished by the magnitude of rebound they describe, both terms describe precisely the same processes. Where demand is far from saturated, technical efficiency improvements will both accelerate energy demand growth AND the onset of peak energy consumption. When and if demand saturates and peaks, technical efficiency will drive declining energy consumption.
Obviously, rebound and backfire effects associated with the use of better and more efficient energy technologies in the developing world will bring enormous improvements in human well-being with them and some have suggested that for this reason, discussing the energy and climate implications of rebound effects in these contexts is somehow out of bounds.
But the question at hand is not whether efficient technologies are good or bad, or whether they will help lift poor people out of poverty. It is what effect their broad diffusion around the world will have on energy demand and carbon emissions. It seems to have been completely forgotten that the target of our op-ed was not LED lights or their inventors. Nor was it poor countries that will use LEDs to raise living standards. Rather, it was the claim made in the announcement of the Nobel Physics Prize that widespread diffusion of LED's could reduce global energy use associated with lighting from 20% of total global energy demand to 4%.
This claim might be dismissed as harmless hyperbole were it not for the fact that the same basic error in calculating the likely energy savings associated with energy efficient technologies is baked into just about every climate mitigation scenario that has been produced over the last decade, including not only those produced by environmental NGO's that have long exaggerated the mitigation potential of energy efficiency but mainstream modeling by institutions such as the International Energy Agency, the McKinsey's management consultancy, and the United Nations IPCC.
Efficiency has been viewed almost universally as, in the words of Amory Lovins, "a lunch you get paid to eat." And while efficiency brings many benefits, the evolving literature on not only rebound but also the real opportunity costs associated with efficiency measures, the likely double counting of efficiency savings in both BAU estimations of future energy demand and climate mitigation scenarios, and the underestimation of future energy consumption among the global poor suggest that widespread efficiency measures are unlikely to represent the cheap and easy path to emissions reductions that many assume.
As a result, as Steve Sorrell concludes his post, "we may be systematically underestimating the already formidable challenge of reducing global carbon emissions." This represents uncomfortable knowledge for many in the environmental community, as well as within the IEA. Revising climate mitigation scenarios to account for rebound and to offer more realistic projections of future energy demand will have substantial implications for policy-makers and serious climate advocates, who have been told for years that 40% or more of the mitigation challenge could be solved through greater energy efficiency.
While we applaud Azevedo et al. for acknowledging that rebounds are likely to be substantially higher than IEA, IPCC and environmental NGO's have historically recognized, it is unfortunate that they seem more interested in upbraiding us for bringing the issue to The New York Times opinion page than on pushing these large and well resourced institutions to take rebound seriously. Perhaps now we can all work together to assure that groups like the IEA and IPCC offer more realistic assessments of the potential of energy efficiency for climate mitigation.
LOAD-DATE: October 27, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2014 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
490 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 23, 2014 Thursday 7:17 PM GMT
EU leaders set to strike climate deal to cut greenhouse gases 40% by 2030;
But Poland threatens to use veto against agreement aimed to set the stage for Paris summit if it is not granted exemptions
BYLINE: Ian Traynor and Arthur Neslen in Brussels
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 782 words
European leaders were expected to strike a broad climate change pact obliging the EU as a whole to cut greenhouse gases by at least 40% by 2030.
But key aspects of the deal that will form a bargaining position for global climate talks in Paris next year were left vague or voluntary, raising questions as to how the aims would be realised.
Draft proposals were given to national delegations on watermarked paper in sealed envelopes as the EU summit in Brussels started on Thursday, in an attempt to prevent leaks.
The proposals pencilled in two 27% targets - for renewable energy market share and increase in energy efficiency improvement. The former would be binding only on the EU as a whole. The latter would be voluntary, although it could be raised to 30% by a review in 2020.
The Brussels summit was dominated by arguments over energy savings and climate policy, with countries from Poland to Portugal pleading special circumstances and threatening to veto any breakthrough unless their demands were met.
Acute divisions over the energy policy were reflected in the fact that summit "sherpas" were still meeting on Thursday afternoon to draft a deal for the leaders.
David Cameron was keen to minimise any perceived loss of UK sovereignty over energy policy, for fear of further exposure to attacks from the Eurosceptic wing of his Conservative party and Ukip. The prime minister insisted that policies aimed at boosting renewables and saving electricity be voluntary for member states.
"It's important that you've got flexibility over your energy mix," said a Downing Street spokeswoman. Cameron hoped to cut the energy efficiency figure to 25%, but was prepared to accept 27% as long as it was not binding on Britain.
Poland, heavily dependent on coal-fired energy production, threatened to block the deal unless the costs to its economy and industry were discounted by (EURO)15bn-(EURO)20bn (£12bn-£16bn) between 2020 and 2030, under a complicated system of concessions from the EU's carbon trading system.
Concessions granted Poland will allow it to continue reaping hundreds of millions of euros in free allowances to modernise coal-fired power plants. Of eight EU nations eligible for the free allocations, Poland claimed 60% of the total up until 2012.
A poll by TNS and YouGov for the online activist group Avaaz late last week found that 56% of Poles thought that EU financial support for energy should back clean energy rather than fossil fuels.
"It's scandalous," said Julia Michalak, a spokeswoman for Climate Action Network Europe. "A continuation of free emission permits for Poland's coal-reliant energy system would be a grave mistake. Leaders who came to Brussels to agree new historic climate goals, are actually discussing whether to hand out money to Europe's dirtiest power plants."
Intense bilateral discussions between Cameron, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and other EU leaders over the last week tried to find ways of placating the Poles, who have kept open their option of vetoing the summit outcome.
Portugal and Spain demanded a more substantial system of electricity interconnectors across the Pyrenees enabling them to market surplus renewable energy in France, which is heavily nuclear-dependent and reluctant to open its energy market to competition from the Iberian peninsula.
The final draft said the interconnectors system should be expanded to be capable of carrying 15% of electricity generated in the EU, but this figure was merely a recommendation. Diplomats and officials said the Portuguese were deeply unhappy.
It was not clear whether the leaders would reach an agreement. "It will be very hard negotiations," said a senior German official. "This is just a first step," said a French diplomat. "Then everything has to be turned into European legislation. It's complicated."
The anticipated 40% greenhouse gas cut by 2030 would be measured against benchmark 1990 levels. That figure is to be binding on the EU and the minimum level achieved, with Germany and Britain happy to agree a higher figure.
But the details of how the burden is spread across 28 countries have still to be settled, suggesting that the agreement would be simply a negotiating position for next year's crunch talks in Paris on a global climate change deal.
Tony Robson, the CEO of Knauf Insulation - a leading insulation firm that had threatened to divest from Europe unless firm energy saving targets were announced - said that the 27% figure for energy efficiency improvement was "no better than business as usual" in an open letter to EU leaders.
A 27% target "sends a strong signal to the energy efficiency industry to 'leave Europe and make your investments elsewhere'," he wrote.
LOAD-DATE: October 23, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
491 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 23, 2014 Thursday 10:23 AM GMT
Fossil fuel divestment campaign targets UCL and BHP Billiton;
University College London under fire for sustainability institute funded by mining giant BHP Billiton, which faces protests at its London AGM
BYLINE: Damian Carrington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 924 words
The fast-growing campaign to persuade investors to dump fossil fuel stocks has set its sights on a twin target of the world's biggest mining company and one of the globe's best universities.
The mining giant BHP Billiton will face protests at its AGM in London on Thursday over its £6m association with University College London (UCL) and the effects of its activities around the world.
The fossil fuel divestment campaign began in the US, where cities, churches and universities have shed their stocks, and has spread rapidly to 50 universities in the UK, with Glasgow the first breakthrough. This week has seen protests against UK banks, which have provided £66bn of funding for fossil fuel extraction.
"UCL is doubly implicated in the devastation that BHP Billiton in causing in countries like Indonesia and Colombia, both through its investments, and through its funding of UCL's Institute for Sustainable Resources," said Pekka Piirainen from the Fossil Free UCL campaign.
"Glasgow University has shown great leadership in being the first university [in Europe] to choose to stop profiting from the destruction of the climate - there's no reason why UCL can't do the same."
UCL's acceptance of funding from BHP Billiton led to the resignation of vice-dean Professor Jane Rendell in 2013.
A leading environmental scientist at UCL, Simon Lewis, said: "When I heard BHP Billiton is the founding funder of UCL's Institute for Sustainable Resources, I didn't believe it. It sounds like the environmental equivalent of a tobacco company sponsoring an Institute for Cancer Research. BHP Billiton mines enormous quantities of coal, a fossil fuel that needs to be phased out if international agreements to limit climate change are to be adhered to."
A spokeswoman for UCL said: "UCL is committed to an investment policy that is guided by ethical considerations. We are currently engaged with the Fossil Free UCL campaign, who have asked us to consider a number of investments, and this is process is ongoing."
She said: "The funding [from BHP Billiton] are used entirely at the discretion of UCL's Institute for Sustainable Resources and are not influenced by or a reflection of the company's business practice."
The BHP Billiton AGM will also hear protests from people affected by its operations around the world. Rogelio Ustate Arregocés, has travelled from Colombia, where his village Tabaco was destroyed by the opencast Cerrejón coal mine, one of the largest in the world and part-owned by BHP.
"Where Tabaco stood is a hole, a sterile place of sadness and fear," said Arregocés, who is being hosted by the World Development Movement. He accused BHP of breaking promises made about relocation, compensation and employment and will demand the provision of new land so the hundreds of families displaced can return to farming and fishing. "We want freedom, in our own territory."
"I want to tell all investors in BHP to withdraw their money because of the damage this multinational does," Arregocés said. Pius Ginting, from Friends of the Earth Indonesia, will also use proxy shares to tell the BHP Billiton AGM that the company should give up its huge areas of coal mining permits in the rainforests in the heart of Borneo. UCL declined to meet Arregocés or Ginting.
A spokesman for BHP Billiton said: "Cerrejón continues to engage with all the local communities to understand their individual concerns and develop tailored solutions to meet their needs whenever possible. There are a variety of challenges some of which pre-date our involvement."
On the company's project in Borneo, called IndoMet, the spokesman said: "Any development by us is subject to detailed environmental and social impact assessments and feasibility studies, including ensuring all appropriate permits are in place. All mined areas will be rehabilitated post-mining."
The spokesman added that it had no involvement in directing research projects at UCL's Institute for Sustainable Resources.
Another critical voice at the BHP Billiton AGM will be Ian Dunlop, a long-time former Shell employee and former chair of the Australian Coal Association, who will warn the company that shareholder value is at serious risk because of climate change.
"The opportunity for value destruction is enormous," said Dunlop, who is seeking election to the BHP board. "BHP are ahead of much of the industry but that is not saying much, as the rest are all in denial."
"The phase out of coal will be much more rapid than they expect," he said. "BHP look at it as advanced, incremental change from business as usual, but they have to look at it as a paradigm shift."
Analysts at Carbon Tracker argue that international action to combat global warming will leave at least two-thirds of known coal, oil and gas unburnable and valueless. The governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, said earlier in October the "vast majority of reserves are unburnable."
BHP Billiton is recommending shareholders vote against Dunlop, stating he lacks the "overall skills and experience profile required". Dunlop's attempt to join the board on 2013 was opposed by 96% of shareholders.
"We accept the IPCC assessment of climate change science, which has found that warming of the climate is unequivocal, the human influence is clear and physical impacts are unavoidable," said the BHP spokesman, citing the company's recent sustainability report. "Energy coal makes up 25% of the energy mix and in many regions is the source of affordable energy that offers security of supply. This is likely to remain the case for some time."
LOAD-DATE: October 23, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
492 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 23, 2014 Thursday 7:00 AM GMT
Can art inspire climate change action? An ice installation aims to do just that;
To coincide with the latest IPCC climate report, 12 blocks of Greenland ice will be left to melt in Copenhagen City Hall Square as a visual representation of climate change
BYLINE: Elke Weber, Irena Bauman, and Olafur Eliasson
SECTION: GUARDIAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
LENGTH: 891 words
This weekend 12 enormous blocks of ice weighing 100 tonnes will be left to melt in Copenhagen's City Hall Square as a striking visual representation of the reality of climate change. The ice, collected from a fjord outside Nuuk, Greenland and displayed in clock formation, is intended to be a physical wake-up call to encourage people to transform climate knowledge into climate action.
Later this month, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will present its Fifth Assessment Report, the most comprehensive assessment of scientific knowledge on climate change since 2007. But it may not lead to action. The information presented by the IPCC is overwhelming and scary and most of it, too complex to be able to translate into effective actions.
The Ice Watch installation is intended to make the climate challenges we are facing tangible. Perception and physical experience are cornerstones of art, and they may also function as tools for creating social change.
The problem is that all too often citizens of the developed world feel disconnected from - or may be fortunate to be unaffected by - the major problems in the world. We do not see ourselves as active agents in the global community. Climate change, poverty, war, disease - these are challenges that compete for our attention. The information age in general, and public awareness campaigns in particular, have succeeded in making most of us know that these challenges must be addressed. But there is a tremendous disconnect between what we know and what we feel, and, consequently, what we do about them.
Being touched by a book, by music, or a work of art gives you a jolt. It shifts you into a new place. This profound experience is not necessarily about getting to know something new. Often when we are touched, we become aware of what is already within us, something we recognise and maybe even identify with, but have not yet verbalised or felt, deep down. This is why looking at a great painting can be liberating and why theatre can connect our heads to our hearts.
When we embody knowledge through experience, we turn it into a force that can guide and shape our actions, in global as well as local contexts. Society and action are not external to art; they are a vital part of it, and there is a long tradition of making thoughts, feelings, and ideas not just perceived and felt, but also relevant in and for societal contexts.
The positive stories of transitioning to a sustainable world are out there and should accompany and temper the doomsday scenarios, because they show the way forward. Certainly, it is important to present the data behind key challenges facing the world today, but action does not necessarily grow from here. Linking knowledge with an embodied sense of who we are and want to be, of responsibility for our children and grandchildren and of commitment to the future, is necessary to mobilise action.
Culture is a strong ally in this endeavour. Where conventional methods of display and communication deployed in, for instance, commercial spaces target people as consumers, cultural spaces invite people inside and hold their attention and presence in a different way. These spaces are bottom up; they tend to create trust and a feeling of empowerment for the individual. Culture helps us, as individuals and groups to experience our interconnectivity, our interdependence, and may move us to do something together, to act with each other, to become conscious, active members of the 'global we'.
By using art, architecture, storytelling, and other cultural activities and by illustrating the correlation between a sustainable lifestyle and a happier and healthier life, we can achieve the shift needed for real climate change action to happen. Therefore, we need to accompany strategy plans, position papers, and limits for CO2 omissions with cultural work.
We call on novelists, playwrights, architects, sculptures, painters, photographers, and other cultural activists to create and make tangible, the option of a sustainable world. We need to understand that life-enhancing measures can be undertaken on behalf of the Earth, its climate, all of us, and our individual and collective future.
It's time to realise that we are not going to solve the climate crisis through our rational mind alone.
Action on climate change requires more than information provided by IPCC reports and other sources. It requires inspiration. We need to be inspired and motivated to change our lifestyles, building codes, travel habits, food choices, energy sources, economic and social indicators, political processes, and much more.
Elke Weber is the Jerome A. Professor of International Business at Columbia University, Usairena Bauman is professor of sustainable urbanism at University of Sheffield, and Ukolafur Eliasson is an artist
Read more stories like this:
Six strategies for creating system change for a sustainable future
Happiness and wellbeing trump material growth
Happiness and wellbeing trump material growth
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
LOAD-DATE: October 23, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
493 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 23, 2014 Thursday 5:38 AM GMT
Climate activists warn BHP Billiton shareholders of coal's profit risk;
A former chairman of the Australian Coal Association will tell the resource company's AGM climate change could destroy profits
BYLINE: Guardian staff
SECTION: BUSINESS
LENGTH: 459 words
Shareholders in BHP Billiton risk seeing the value of their investment destroyed by climate change, a former chairman of the Australian Coal Association will warn on Thursday.
As Australia's biggest mining company faces a slew of protests at its annual general meeting in London, Ian Dunlop will tell shareholders that the value of coal assets in particular could drop very quickly.
"The opportunity for value destruction is enormous," Dunlop said before the meeting. "BHP are ahead of much of the industry but that is not saying much as the rest are all in denial. The phase out of coal will be much more rapid than they expect."
Dunlop is seeking election to the BHP board. "BHP look at it as advanced, incremental change from business as usual, but they have to look at it as a paradigm shift."
Analysts at Carbon Tracker argue that international action to combat global warming will leave at least two-thirds of known coal, oil and gas unburnable and valueless.
It was reported on Thursday that the amount of coal being burned by China - the world's biggest user of coal - had fallen for the first time this century, according to a Greenpeace analysis of official statistics.
BHP Billiton is recommending shareholders vote against Dunlop, stating he lacks the "overall skills and experience profile required". Dunlop's attempt to join the board in 2013 was opposed by 96% of shareholders.
"We accept the IPCC assessment of climate change science, which has found that warming of the climate is unequivocal, the human influence is clear and physical impacts are unavoidable," said the BHP spokesman, citing the company's recent sustainability report.
"Energy coal makes up 25% of the energy mix and in many regions is the source of affordable energy that offers security of supply. This is likely to remain the case for some time."
Last week Australia's prime minister, Tony Abbott, tried to bolster the case for coal, saying it was "good for humanity" and should not be "demonised".
BHP's AGM will also be targeted by the fast-growing campaign to persuade investors to dump fossil fuel stocks with protests expected on Thursday over the company's $10m association with University College London (UCL) and the effects of its activities around the world.
The fossil fuel divestment campaign began in the US, where cities, churches and universities have shed their stocks, and has spread rapidly to 50 universities in Britain, with Glasgow the first breakthrough. This week protesters have targeted UK banks, which have provided £66bn ($120bn) of funding for fossil fuel extraction.
Protesters designated last Saturday as "national day of divestment" in an effort to persuade investors to drop fossil fuel stocks and also shares in banks that invest in such companies.
LOAD-DATE: October 23, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
494 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 23, 2014 Thursday 5:30 AM GMT
Fossil fuel divestment campaign targets UCL and BHP Billiton;
University College London under fire for sustainability institute funded by mining giant BHP Billiton, which faces protests at its London AGM
BYLINE: Damian Carrington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 846 words
The fast-growing campaign to persuade investors to dump fossil fuel stocks has set its sights on a twin target of the world's biggest mining company and one of the globe's best universities.
The mining giant BHP Billiton will face protests at its AGM in London on Thursday over its £6m association with University College London (UCL) and the effects of its activities around the world.
The fossil fuel divestment campaign began in the US, where cities, churches and universities shed have their stocks, and has spread rapidly to 50 universities in the UK, with Glasgow the first breakthrough. This week has seen protests against UK banks, which have provided £66bn of funding for fossil fuel extraction.
"UCL is doubly implicated in the devastation that BHP Billiton in causing in countries like Indonesia and Colombia, both through its investments, and through its funding of UCL's Institute for Sustainable Resources," said Pekka Piirainen from the Fossil Free UCL campaign.
"Glasgow University has shown great leadership in being the first university [in Europe] to choose to stop profiting from the destruction of the climate - there's no reason why UCL can't do the same."
UCL's acceptance of funding from BHP Billiton led to the resignation of vice-dean Professor Jane Rendell in 2013.
A leading environmental scientist at UCL, Simon Lewis, said: "When I heard BHP Billiton is the founding funder of UCL's Institute for Sustainable Resources, I didn't believe it. It sounds like the environmental equivalent of a tobacco company sponsoring an Institute for Cancer Research. BHP Billiton mines enormous quantities of coal, a fossil fuel that needs to be phased out if international agreements to limit climate change are to be adhered to."
The BHP Billiton AGM will also hear protests from people affected by its operations around the world. Rogelio Ustate Arregocés, has travelled from Colombia, where his village Tabaco was destroyed by the opencast Cerrejon coal mine, one of the largest in the world and part-owned by BHP.
"Where Tabaco stood is a hole, a sterile place of sadness and fear," said Arregocés, who is being hosted by the World Development Movement. He accused BHP of breaking promises made about relocation, compensation and employment and will demand the provision of new land so the hundreds of families displaced can return to farming and fishing. "We want freedom, in our own territory."
"I want to tell all investors in BHP to withdraw their money because of the damage this multinational does," Arregocés said. Pius Ginting, from Friends of the Earth Indonesia, will also use proxy shares to tell the BHP Billiton AGM that company should give up its huge areas of coal mining permits in the rainforests in the heart of Borneo. UCL declined to meet Arregocés or Ginting.
A spokesman for BHP Billiton said: "Cerrejon continues to engage with all the local communities to understand their individual concerns and develop tailored solutions to meet their needs whenever possible. There are a variety of challenges some of which pre-date our involvement."
On the company's project in Borneo, called IndoMet, the spokesman said: "Any development by us is subject to detailed environmental and social impact assessments and feasibility studies, including ensuring all appropriate permits are in place. All mined areas will be rehabilitated post-mining."
The spokesman added that it had no involvement in directing research projects at UCL's Institute for Sustainable Resources.
Another critical voice at the BHP Billiton AGM will be Ian Dunlop, a long-time former Shell employee and former chair of the Australian Coal Association, who will warn the company that shareholder value is at serious risk because of climate change.
"The opportunity for value destruction is enormous," said Dunlop, who is seeking election to the BHP board. "BHP are ahead of much of the industry but that is not saying much as the rest are all in denial."
"The phase out of coal will be much more rapid than they expect," he said. "BHP look at it as advanced, incremental change from business as usual, but they have to look at it as a paradigm shift."
Analysts at Carbon Tracker argue that international action to combat global warming will leave at least two-thirds of known coal, oil and gas unburnable and valueless. The governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, said earlier in October the "vast majority of reserves are unburnable."
BHP Billiton is recommending shareholders vote against Dunlop, stating he lacks the "overall skills and experience profile required". Dunlop's attempt to join the board on 2013 was opposed by 96% of shareholders.
"We accept the IPCC assessment of climate change science, which has found that warming of the climate is unequivocal, the human influence is clear and physical impacts are unavoidable," said the BHP spokesman, citing the company's recent sustainability report. "Energy coal makes up 25% of the energy mix and in many regions is the source of affordable energy that offers security of supply. This is likely to remain the case for some time."
LOAD-DATE: October 23, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
495 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 23, 2014 Thursday 1:16 AM GMT
China's coal use falls for first time this century, analysis suggests;
Drop of 1-2% in amount of coal burned offers 'a window of opportunity' to bring climate change under control, say Greenpeace energy analysts
BYLINE: Damian Carrington
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 581 words
The amount of coal being burned by China has fallen for the first time this century, according to an analysis of official statistics.
China's booming coal in the last decade has been the major contributor to the fast-rising carbon emissions that drive climate change, making the first fall a significant moment.
The amount of coal burned in the first three-quarters of 2014 was 1-2% lower than a year earlier, according to Greenpeace energy analysts in China. The drop contrasts sharply with the 5-10% annual growth rates seen since the early years of the century.
"The significance is that if the coal consumption growth we have seen in China in the last 10 years went on, we would lose any hope of bringing climate change under control," said Lauri Myllyvirta at Greenpeace East Asia. "The turnaround now gives a window of opportunity."
Such a turnaround would potentially have a large impact on the biggest coal exporting countries such as Indonesia and Australia, which have profited from China's demand for the fuel.
At the UN climate change summit in New York in September, China said it would start to reduce the nation's huge carbon emissions "as early as possible".
Myllyvirta warned that year-to-year fluctuations in energy use and industrial prediction could see coal burning grow again in future. "It may not be the peak yet, but it is a sign that China is moving away from coal." Climate scientists say that global carbon emissions need to peak by 2020 and rapidly decline to avoid dangerous climate change.
Myllyvirta said the greatest significance of the current drop in coal use was that economic growth had continued at 7.4% at the same time, although that is a lower rate than in recent years. "The Chinese economy is divorcing coal," he said. By contrast, the tripling of the Chinese economy since 2002 was accompanied by a doubling of coal use.
Official Chinese data has been unreliable in the past but Myllyvirta said cross-checking the current data for industrial production with energy consumption showed a consistent picture.
Coal consumption for electricity is coming down, there is very slow growth of steel and cement and a drop in both coal imports and domestic coal production, he said. "We are seeing so many different data showing a consistent pattern that we have much more confidence this is really happening."
The cause of the reduced coal-burning was reduced demand, with China's statistical agency noting that economic growth was increasingly coming from the service sector instead of heavy industry, as well as new renewable energy such as hydropower and wind power.
On Wednesday, the consultancy Make said 2014 would be a record year for wind in China with 20.4GW of new installations. A further factor was action to cut the severe air pollution affecting many Chinese cities and which recently led to many of the 30,000 runners in the Beijing marathon wearing face masks.
After China, the US is the world's biggest carbon polluter. But President Barack Obama's efforts to fight climate change were dealt a blow on Tuesday when the US Energy Information Administration's Monthly Energy Review revealed that US energy-related carbon pollution rose 2.5% in 2013.
The rise was one of the steepest on record in the last 25 years and resulted in part from the freezing Arctic temperatures of 2103's polar vortex increasing the energy used to heat homes. The data also showed a 4.8% increase in the use of energy from coal and a 10% fall in energy from natural gas.
LOAD-DATE: October 23, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
496 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 23, 2014 Thursday 12:56 AM GMT
Ed Davey attacks coalition partners over pledge to end wind subsidies;
Energy secretary says 'the party that takes wind off the table is reckless' in an attack quickly dismissed by Tory minister
BYLINE: Terry Macalister
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 636 words
Ed Davey, the energy and climate change secretary, has accused his coalition government partners of "reckless" behaviour for their manifesto commitment to end subsidies for onshore wind.
The Lib Dem MP said Britain needed as many renewable energy technologies as possible but his attack was immediately dismissed as "his view" by one of his own ministers, the Tory MP Amber Rudd.
The war of words broke out at the Energy UK annual conference in London, only days after stormy weather helped wind power to set a new daily record by generating 24% of the country's electricity.
In a speech Davey dismissed fears of the lights going out this winter, attacked Labour over its proposals to freeze domestic prices and insisted his own policies were sucking in much-needed investment.
"In just four years under this coalition, we have surpassed the total electricity investment achieved under the last government in 13 years, with over £45bn invested in electricity generation and networks alone," he said.
Asked from the conference floor to justify current investment priorities, the energy secretary said he wanted to encourage as wide a group of low carbon technologies as possible to make sure Britain benefited. "I think the party that takes wind off the table is reckless," he said, adding: "If we focused on one [technology] we'd be far more exposed in the future."
But Rudd said later that Davey was just expressing his own view and she argued that while diversification of supply was important it should only be done with the support of local communities, indicating this was not the case with onshore wind.
The differences between the Lib Dem energy secretary and his Conservative colleagues was also on show last week when he dismissed as "reckless in the extreme" a call by the former environment secretary Owen Paterson for a suspension of the Climate Change Act.
But Davey and Rudd were united at the energy conference in attacking the Labour party over its promise to introduce a retail energy price freeze should it win the general election next spring.
Davey said it would destroy competition while Rudd went further, arguing: "The price freeze proposal put forward by Labour is already having a detrimental impact on investment - with some reports suggesting a £3bn shortfall in investment in the energy sector over the past year. And a price freeze would ultimately drive up costs for the very consumers Labour say they are trying to help".
Later she claimed that several chief executives had made clear to her that they were not implementing any price cuts this autumn despite falling wholesale prices because of the freeze. Asked whether it did not suit their interest to say such things, she answered: "You can choose to believe them or not." The Labour party argued she should report anyone artificially inflating prices to the Competition and Markets Authority.
In August Paul Massara, the boss of RWE npower, was the only one who has so far broken cover on the issue. He wrote in a letter to the regulator, Ofgem: "The political and media pressures at the moment make it more difficult to reduce prices and then increase them again next spring."
The Energy UK conference brought messages from consumer champions to the big six suppliers, however, about how hard and long it would be for them to rebuild trust with consumers.
The Federation of Small Businesses was particularly critical, saying many of its members were considering setting up energy projects to beat their own energy problems but also to make money - not by selling electricity into the National Grid but by providing power to other neighbouring businesses. Ian Peters, managing director for residential energy at British Gas, said he industry needed to work hard but said much of the comment on the sector was based on "myth, legend and deception."
LOAD-DATE: October 23, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
497 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 22, 2014 Wednesday 6:00 PM GMT
Ed Davey attacks coalition partners over pledge to end wind subsidies;
Energy secretary says 'the party that takes wind off the table is reckless' in an attack quickly dismissed by Tory minister
BYLINE: Terry Macalister
SECTION: ENVIRONMENT
LENGTH: 636 words
Ed Davey, the energy and climate change secretary, has accused his coalition government partners of "reckless" behaviour for their manifesto commitment to end subsidies for onshore wind.
The Lib Dem MP said Britain needed as many renewable energy technologies as possible but his attack was immediately dismissed as "his view" by one of his own ministers, the Tory MP Amber Rudd.
The war of words broke out at the Energy UK annual conference in London, only days after stormy weather helped wind power to set a new daily record by generating 24% of the country's electricity.
In a speech Davey dismissed fears of the lights going out this winter, attacked Labour over its proposals to freeze domestic prices and insisted his own policies were sucking in much-needed investment.
"In just four years under this coalition, we have surpassed the total electricity investment achieved under the last government in 13 years, with over £45bn invested in electricity generation and networks alone," he said.
Asked from the conference floor to justify current investment priorities, the energy secretary said he wanted to encourage as wide a group of low carbon technologies as possible to make sure Britain benefited. "I think the party that takes wind off the table is reckless," he said, adding: "If we focused on one [technology] we'd be far more exposed in the future."
But Rudd said later that Davey was just expressing his own view and she argued that while diversification of supply was important it should only be done with the support of local communities, indicating this was not the case with onshore wind.
The differences between the Lib Dem energy secretary and his Conservative colleagues was also on show last week when he dismissed as "reckless in the extreme" a call by the former environment secretary Owen Paterson for a suspension of the Climate Change Act.
But Davey and Rudd were united at the energy conference in attacking the Labour party over its promise to introduce a retail energy price freeze should it win the general election next spring.
Davey said it would destroy competition while Rudd went further, arguing: "The price freeze proposal put forward by Labour is already having a detrimental impact on investment - with some reports suggesting a £3bn shortfall in investment in the energy sector over the past year. And a price freeze would ultimately drive up costs for the very consumers Labour say they are trying to help".
Later she claimed that several chief executives had made clear to her that they were not implementing any price cuts this autumn despite falling wholesale prices because of the freeze. Asked whether it did not suit their interest to say such things, she answered: "You can choose to believe them or not." The Labour party argued she should report anyone artificially inflating prices to the Competition and Markets Authority.
In August Paul Massara, the boss of RWE npower, was the only one who has so far broken cover on the issue. He wrote in a letter to the regulator, Ofgem: "The political and media pressures at the moment make it more difficult to reduce prices and then increase them again next spring."
The Energy UK conference brought messages from consumer champions to the big six suppliers, however, about how hard and long it would be for them to rebuild trust with consumers.
The Federation of Small Businesses was particularly critical, saying many of its members were considering setting up energy projects to beat their own energy problems but also to make money - not by selling electricity into the National Grid but by providing power to other neighbouring businesses. Ian Peters, managing director for residential energy at British Gas, said he industry needed to work hard but said much of the comment on the sector was based on "myth, legend and deception."
LOAD-DATE: October 22, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
498 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The Guardian
October 22, 2014 Wednesday 9:09 AM GMT
Ed Davey, secretary of state for energy and climate change - live chat;
This is your chance to ask the energy secretary anything. Join Ed Davey MP live online from 10.30-11.30am BST on Wednesday 22 October
BYLINE: Hannah Fearn
SECTION: THE BIG ENERGY DEBATE
LENGTH: 371 words
First elected Liberal Democrat MP for Kingston and Surbiton in 1997, Ed Davey spent 13 years as a party spokesperson on issues as varied as housing, education and foreign affairs. After his party formed a coalition government with the Conservatives in 2010 he was promoted, first working as an under-secretary in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills before being appointed secretary of state for energy and climate change in 2012.
Addressing the Liberal Democrat party conference earlier this month, Davey took pride in his record in government. "We're delivering dramatic change in energy because we are outsiders, on the side of people, not vested interests," he said. "Above all, we are proving people can have greener energy and cheaper energy - even as vested interests are desperate to persuade people you can't."
He said his party in government had doubled investment in renewable energy, making Britain a world leader in offshore wind and tidal power, and had contributed towards the falling cost of solar. He also used his conference speech to issue a warning to the public:
Voters beware. Voting blue will never get you green. And if the Tories win the next election, the dramatic rise in renewable electricity Liberal Democrats have achieved would be stopped dead in its tracks.
But what do you make of the energy secretary's record? And what questions do you have about Britain's future energy supply and security? This is your chance to ask.
Join energy secretary Ed Davey for a live chat:
Join us on Wednesday 22 October from 10.30am BST for a live chat with Ed Davey, secretary of state for energy and climate change.
We'll be asking questions including:
· How do you rate progress on the introduction of renewable energy sources? · How can the government ensure we have a secure energy supply? · Can Britain meet its tough carbon reduction targets? · Can government really do anything about spiralling energy costs?
How to join in:
The live chat is completely text based and will take place on this page in the comments section below, kicking off on Wednesday 22 October at 10.30am. You can submit any questions in advance on Twitter using the hashtag #bigenergydebate or post them in the comment thread now.
LOAD-DATE: October 22, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WEBGNS
Copyright 2014 The Guardian, a division of Transcontinental Media Group Inc.
All Rights Reserved
499 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
October 22, 2014 Wednesday
Late Edition - Final
A Retreat From Weather Disasters
BYLINE: By EDUARDO PORTER.
Email: eporter@nytimes.com; Twitter: @portereduardo
SECTION: Section B; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; ECONOMIC SCENE; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1272 words
After Hurricane Sandy roared across the Northeastern United States, many homeowners on Long Island -- even those who escaped the most damage -- often lost their property insurance. The same thing happened in coastal Virginia after Hurricane Katrina, which hit hundreds of miles away along the Gulf Coast.
Today, from Florida to Delaware, property insurance near the water is becoming harder and harder to find.
''I'm worried because insurers only stay in markets until they deem them not profitable,'' said Mike Kreidler, the Washington State insurance commissioner. ''We want these insurers to stay fully in the market.''
This is not exclusively an American phenomenon. As the damages wrought by increasingly disruptive weather patterns have climbed around the world, the insurance industry seems to have quietly engaged in what looks a lot like a retreat.
A report to be released Wednesday by Ceres, the sustainability advocacy group, makes the point forcefully. ''Over the past 30 years annual losses from natural catastrophes have continued to increase while the insured portion has declined,'' it concluded.
Last year, less than a third of the $116 billion in worldwide losses from weather-related disasters were covered by insurance, according to data from the reinsurer Swiss Re. In 2005, the year Katrina struck, insurance picked up 45 percent of the bill.
This gradual, low-key withdrawal reveals an alarming weakness. Even as the risks of climactic upheaval increase with a warming atmosphere, the industry created to provide for civilization's first line of defense against disasters is turning tail.
''In the long run,'' the Ceres report added, ''these coverage retreats transfer growing risks to public institutions and local populations, and reduce the resiliency of communities, which are less able to finance postdisaster recoveries.''
In the first report of this kind, Ceres ranked the preparedness for climate change of the 330 largest insurance firms doing business in the United States, representing about 87 percent of the property and casualty, health and life insurance market.
Using insurers' responses last year to a climate risk survey developed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Ceres ranked their performance on half a dozen indicators, from how climate change figured in risk-management systems and governance to whether they took into account climate-related risks to their investment portfolios.
The good news is that a few big firms are truly paying attention. The bad news is that there are only nine -- including just two American companies, Prudential and the Hartford, and several big reinsurers like Swiss Re and Munich Re.
By contrast, 276 insurers earned ''beginning'' or ''minimal'' ratings. ''Eighty-five percent of the industry is just starting to develop a plan or really not doing much at all,'' said Cynthia McHale, director of the Ceres insurance program, who led the research effort.
For some insurers, apparently, the risks of climate change still seem too distant and abstract. Life insurers must hold very long-term investments in assets like real estate that could lose value sharply because of climate change. Still, Ceres noted, most of them ''do not believe they face significant risks.'' Similarly, with the exception of Kaiser Permanente, health insurers are ignoring the impact that climate change could have on disease patterns and human health.
Property and casualty insurers have a clearer picture of the huge potential costs they face. CoreLogic, which provides analysis on the property market, calculates that more than 6.5 million homes in the United States are at risk of storm surge damage. Their reconstruction value is $1.5 trillion, or about one-tenth of the annual output of the entire American economy.
What is holding back the insurers on the front line of climate change, it seems, is an entirely different reason: the threat of legal liability.
Lawsuits over climate are popping up. In 2011, the power company AES tried to draw on its contracts with Steadfast Insurance when an Inupiat Eskimo village in Alaska sued it, along with a bunch of coal-burning utilities, a coal producer and some energy companies, because sea ice that formerly protected the village from winter storms was melting.
The state Supreme Court of Virginia ultimately agreed that Steadfast could deny coverage. Other suits for damages have also failed. But that won't hold liability at bay forever. Munich Re, for instance, says it believes policies covering corporate officers and directors may have to pay for damages stemming from their failure to consider the consequences of climate change in their professional activities.
''Lawsuits are an inevitable part of the American system for determining whether and how to compensate for damages,'' the Ceres report noted. ''The larger the alleged injuries from climate change, the greater the recovery efforts will be.''
They could quickly add up. In a 2011 report, the United Nations Environmental Program's Finance Initiative concluded that the world's 3,000 top public companies were causing about $1.5 trillion a year of environmental damage because of greenhouse gas emissions.
Fears of liability risks seem to be freezing insurers like deer in the headlights. Insurance companies that were already wary of the political risk of wading into the climate change debate have been further chilled by the potential legal liability.
If they start writing policies specifically excluding liabilities related to climate change, could that be interpreted as saying that previous policies did cover them? What if they don't mention it at all?
''Discussions of liability disclosure occur more openly outside of the U.S.,'' said Lindene E. Patton, the former chief climate product officer at Zurich Re, who was a co-author of the American Bar Association's ''Climate Change and Insurance'' report two years ago. ''In the U. S. anything you say can be interpreted in future litigation.''
Indeed, ''there's a huge reluctance to even use the word climate change,'' Ms. McHale, the Ceres expert, said. ''Insurance companies did not underwrite or price for climate liability. So their lawyers advise them not to talk about it and not to use the word.''
The quandary for insurance companies, of course, is that they can't give up writing insurance policies without eventually putting themselves out of business. And walking away from markets as they become too risky to insure is not sustainable. For one thing, as insurers on Long Island discovered after Hurricane Sandy, politicians will try to stop them.
Insurers won't be able to stay in markets where they can't align premiums with rising risk. Government regulators must acknowledge this fact. Policy makers must also realize that the enormous subsidies for Americans to build in harm's way are ultimately counterproductive.
Insurers could play a constructive role in preparing the world for climate change, prodding governments and consumers to take account of rising climate risks. ''If we have the ability to affect the rebuild after a catastrophe we can have an impact,'' said Tony Kuczinski, chief executive of Munich Re America.
But rather than promoting a better understanding of risk, Ms. McHale notes, American insurers flooded with foreign cash are in a race to take market share from one another.
The biggest risk of all is that the insurance industry fails when it is most needed.
''At some point, sooner or later, there will be a situation where there are much higher liabilities than anybody anticipated,'' Ms. McHale warned. ''Some companies will have problems.''
So will the rest of us.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/business/economy/insurers-retreat-from-weather-related-disasters.html
LOAD-DATE: October 22, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Mantoloking, N.J., after Hurricane Sandy in 2012. (PHOTOGRAPH BY MICHAEL REYNOLDS/EUROPEAN PRESSPHOTO AGENCY) CHART: Riskier Business: Damages from weather-related catastrophes have increased, but the share of these damages covered by insurance has been declining, according to a new report by Ceres, an environmental advocacy group. (Source: Swiss Re) (B6)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company
500 of 500 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
October 22, 2014 Wednesday
Late Edition - Final
Environment Is Grabbing Big Role in Ads for Campaigns
BYLINE: By CORAL DAVENPORT and ASHLEY PARKER
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 12
LENGTH: 1265 words
WASHINGTON -- In Michigan, an ad attacking Terri Lynn Land, the Republican candidate for the United States Senate, opens with a shot of rising brown floodwaters as a woman says: ''We see it every day in Michigan. Climate change. So why is Terri Lynn Land ignoring the science?''
In Colorado, an ad for Cory Gardner, another Republican candidate for Senate, shows him in a checked shirt and hiking boots, standing in front of a field of wind turbines as he discusses his support for green energy.
And in Kentucky, a spot for the Republican incumbent Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, depicts him flanked by coal miners as a woman intones, ''The person fighting for our coal jobs is Mitch McConnell.''
Ads mentioning energy, climate change and the environment -- over 125,000 spots and climbing on the Senate side -- have surged to record levels during the 2014 midterm election cycle, reflecting the priorities of some of the nation's wealthiest donors, with Democrats now pouring millions into campaigns to match Republicans, according to an analysis by Kantar Media/CMAG, which tracks political advertising.
In Senate races in the general election, the analysis found, energy and the environment are the third-most mentioned issue in political advertisements, behind health care and jobs.
The explosion of energy and environmental ads also suggests the prominent role that the issues could play in the 2016 presidential race, especially as megadonors -- such as Thomas F. Steyer, a California billionaire and environmental activist on the left, and Charles G. and David H. Koch, billionaire brothers on the right -- take sides. Leaders of major environmental groups like the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters said they had collectively spent record amounts of money in this election cycle.
''Candidates are using energy and environment as a sledgehammer to win a race,'' said Elizabeth Wilner, the senior vice president for politics at Kantar Media/CMAG.
Groups representing the energy industry and environmental advocacy have typically been the lead players in presenting policy positions in ads, but this year the candidates themselves and party political committees are also taking on that role.
In conservative states, Republicans are attacking Democrats for supporting President Obama's environmental regulations. And in coal-mining states, each side is running ads showing its candidates embracing both the fuel and the workers.
In more liberal states, Democrats are attacking Republicans for denying the science of climate change and taking money from the Koch brothers.
''What's important about what's going on right now is the extent to which the Democrats feel confident playing offense on environmental and energy issues, and the extent to which polling shows that they are scoring when they do that,'' said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster.
Mr. Obama's new climate change policy prompted some of the ads. In June, Mr. Obama proposed an Environmental Protection Agency regulation that could shutter hundreds of coal-fired power plants -- the nation's chief source of planet-warming carbon pollution -- and stand as the president's climate legacy. That policy has galvanized Republicans against what they call a ''war on coal.''
So far this year, nearly 47,000 spots have mentioned coal, while roughly 26,000 have mentioned the E.P.A. (The mentions have been almost entirely negative, except for spots in support of Senate Democrats, who have cited the agency in a positive manner more than 5,000 times.)
In the hotly contested Kentucky race between Mr. McConnell and Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Democratic challenger, both campaigns and outside donors have highlighted coal in ads.
''From a Kentucky standpoint, it made sense that this would be a bigger issue than Obamacare,'' said Mike Duncan, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee who now heads the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a coal advocacy group.
In Colorado, Brad Todd, a Republican ad maker at OnMessage Inc. who is working on Mr. Gardner's campaign, said the president's policies have provided Republicans with material to attack Democrats. ''President Obama has taken the Democrats too far left on energy,'' he said, ''and I think that's really a metaphor for all the things they distrust about the president.''
In Republican-leaning states with economies that depend on fossil fuels, Democrats are promoting their support of those industries as a way to distance themselves from the president. Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, ran an ad trumpeting the ways in which her position as the chair of the Senate Energy Committee could help Louisiana oil companies.
In Democratic-leaning and swing states, the 2014 election cycle has seen a massive infusion of spending by liberal environmental groups that want to protect Mr. Obama's legacy on climate change, while elevating the issue of climate change ahead of the 2016 campaign.
Chief among them is NextGen Climate, an advocacy group founded by Mr. Steyer, who has pledged that his group will spend a minimum of $100 million this year to elect candidates who back policies that would forestall climate change. The group has focused its spending on presidential battleground states like Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.
''We picked states that will be relevant in 2016. These are all states that are key presidential swing states,'' said Christopher Lehane, the group's chief strategist.
The NextGen strategy is to spend heavily on advertising that attacks Republican candidates who question or deny the science of climate change.
Using polling and demographic data, the group has targeted a million of what it calls ''climate voters'' in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan and New Hampshire. The plan, said Mr. Lehane, will be to run even more ads aimed at those voters ahead of the 2016 elections.
Last week, the group released an ad depicting Republican candidates who dispute the science of climate change as cavemen. ''The idea is that denying climate change is a path to political extinction,'' Mr. Lehane said.
In Senate races in several key states, Democratic candidates, political committees and liberal advocacy groups also have run ads criticizing Republicans for their positions on climate change by tying them to other issues. In Colorado, the League of Conservation Voters ran an ad linking two key issues in the race -- energy policy and women's rights -- and attacking Mr. Gardner, the Republican candidate, for opposing both environmental regulations and some forms of contraception.
''They're making it part of the narrative that their opponents are outside the mainstream,'' said Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters. ''To the extent that it's being used aggressively, that's definitely new.''
During the 2012 presidential campaign, the issue of climate change did not come up once in the three debates between Mr. Obama and his Republican rival, Mitt Romney. This year, the Senate debates in Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana and West Virginia have all included robust exchanges on the candidates' views on coal, climate change, energy and the E.P.A.
''I think the political intensity is only going to increase around this issue,'' said Bill Ritter, the former Democratic governor of Colorado, who now runs an energy policy center at Colorado State University. ''If you polled Republican governors around the country, you'd find that there's an increasing number who are actually talking about it and trying to deal with it.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/us/politics/environmental-issues-become-a-force-in-political-advertising.html
LOAD-DATE: October 22, 2014
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: An image from an ad linking the views of Terri Lynn Land, the Republicans' Senate nominee in Michigan, to rich supporters. (A19) CHART: Energy Ads From Every Angle: The message that voters are receiving about energy and the environment in this election cycle depends on where they live. In Kentucky and West Virginia, where many rely on jobs in the coal industry, political advertisements from both parties have been overwhelmingly pro-coal. In states likely to be battlegrounds during the 2016 presidential race, groups like NextGen Climate have been airing anti-oil and green-energy ads. (Source: Campaign Media Analysis Group at Kantar Media) (A19)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company